Governance of a Complex System: Water

Governance of a
Complex System:
Water
Elizabeth Eppel
Working Paper No: 14/01
Year 2014
1
INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNANCE
AND POLICY STUDIES
WORKING PAPER
14/01
MONTH/YEAR
AUTHOR
February 2014
Elizabeth Eppel
Victoria University of Wellington
This paper has been produced with the support of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at
Victoria University of Wellington.
The author is
grateful to Professor Jonathan Boston, Professor
Rosemary O’Leary, Dr Michael McGinnis, Associate
Professor Michael Macaulay, Dr Bob Frame and Dr
John Pennington for their helpful review comments
on earlier drafts of this paper.
2
Governance of a complex system: Water
Overview
Fresh water is a life-enabling resource as well as the source of spiritual, social and economic wellbeing
and development. It is continuously renewed by the Earth’s natural recycling systems using heat from
the sun to evaporate and purify, and then rain to replenish supplies. For thousands of years people
have benefited from these systems with little concern for their ability to keep up with human
population and economic development. Rapid increases in population and economic activity have
brought concern for how these systems interact with human social and economic systems to centre
stage this century in the guise of a focus on water governance.
What do we mean by governance and how might we better understand our water governance systems
to ensure their ongoing sustainability? This paper sets out a complex adaptive systems view of water
governance. It draws on the academic literature on effective governance of complex systems and
effective water governance to identify some principles for use in water governance in New Zealand. It
illustrates aspects of emerging water governance practice with some examples from New Zealand
which have employed a multi-actor, collaborative governance approach. The paper concludes with
some implications for the future evolution of effective water governance in New Zealand.
Collaborative governance processes are relatively unfamiliar to New Zealand citizens, politicians and
other policy actors which makes it more important that we study and learn from early examples of
the use of this mode of governance.
3
1. Introduction
The availability of fresh water to sustain life and enable economic production presents contemporary
societies and their elected governments with some complex challenges to resolve. New Zealand’s
water governance regime is undergoing change, and some doubt whether it can cope with the social,
economic and natural environment we have today, let alone the one we might face in the future, and
one increasingly affected by climate change. This paper explores some of the challenges to be faced
and highlights the implications they have for the governance of fresh water in New Zealand.
Water is a finite resource on the planet and even though New Zealand currently has a plentiful supply,
there are increasing concerns about maintaining water quality and regulating use. Demands for the
use (or conservation) of fresh water span social, cultural, spiritual, aesthetic, economic and natural
science domains. Relative scarcity, deterioration of water quality from use and addition of
contaminants, contested use, over-allocation of supply, and threats to the natural cycles of renewal
and sustainability of fresh water resources have brought regulatory authorities, water users and the
wider community into increasingly acrimonious conflict and judicial battles. The policy framework, put
into effect through the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) under which fresh water resources
have been regulated has been contested and viewed by some as too slow and cumbersome. For others
who observe a decline in water quality it has proved ineffective. In some places regulation has
operated to the advantage of a powerful few rather than the whole population now and into the
future. Against this backdrop, government has recently proposed ‘a fresh start’ and a framework for
reforming New Zealand’s fresh water management system (Ministry for the Environment, 2013),
which builds on the recommendations for a more collaborative governance process by the Land and
Water Forum1.
The research approach used to inform the paper is described in section 2 and some readers might pass
over this section quickly. The main arguments of the paper are set out in sections 3 to 7. Section 3
explains what is meant by governance, identifies the complex systems involved in water governance
and the reasons a complex adaptive systems approach to water governance is needed. Section 4
canvasses the boundaries within which water governance occurs and in section 5 uses the
international scholarship on water governance to inform principles for the operation of a water
governance system. Several recent New Zealand experiments in water governance are summarised in
section 6 for the perspectives and insights they bring to understanding what is involved in water
governance in New Zealand. The paper concludes in section 7 by identifying some issues which will
1
At the time of writing, the proposed legislative changes to support the fresh water reform had not been enacted. The Land and Water
forum has proposed a collaborative governance approach to water governance as an alternative to the more position-taking and counteropposition processes of the last 20 years.
4
affect the implementation of a more collaborative approach to water governance. As background to
the material in the paper, Appendix 1 contains a chronology of policy and legislative changes affecting
water governance over the last 20 years. It is intended to remind the reader of the history that is
influencing and will continue to influence water governance into the future, even when new legislation
is enacted to give effect to the government’s reform. In this chronology, we can trace the gradual
increase in calls for more collaborative approaches to water governance.
2. Research Approach
This paper is based on scholarship from public management literature on the governance of complex
systems and natural resources management and governance with a particular emphasis on water. The
author has a Bachelor of Science with majors in biological sciences and has most recently researched
complex policy processes and collaborative governance in public policy, at doctoral and post-doctoral
level, drawing on complexity theories.
A focused literature review was undertaken searching for recent scholarship on ‘water governance’,
‘natural resource governance’, ‘natural resource systems’, ‘water management’ using databases of
peer-reviewed academic journals (proQuest Central, Academic Onefile, ABI/Inform Global). Additional
filters included sustainable/sustainability and adaptability in water governance or natural resource
systems governance. Abstracts were used to determine potential relevance to the question: what
constitutes good or effective water governance? As well as the academic journal search, Google and
Bing searches were used to source other grey literature relevant to the research question. Finally,
searches on New Zealand-based websites such as those of the Ministry for the Environment, the
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Auditor General, individual regional councils,
and the New Zealand government Ministers (beehive.govt.nz) were used to find relevant policy
documents, speeches, and other material of relevance. The latter were particularly important in
putting together the exemplars which are presented in the paper.
These sources were used first to distil a conceptual framework for thinking about water governance
which is contained in the narrative presented in this paper. This conceptual framework was used to
help select the examples which appear in the paper and also to help synthesise the implications for
effective water governance presented in the conclusion to the paper.
3. Governance and systems
How fresh water should be managed is characterised by many strongly held and potentially conflicting opinions. Controller and AuditorGeneral, 2011
Governance, some would say, is about steering but, as everyone who drives a car knows, wheels and
brakes out alignment or balance, or loose pinions in your steering column, can land you in a ditch at
5
the side of the road, or worse. So, too, when we consider governance of water, we are talking about
how we steer decisions and actions about water to achieve particular outcomes. That is, we need to
identify the forces and mechanisms that must work together to achieve a particular steering trajectory
and where the linkages between the different processes that make up water governance have to be
reliable enough to enable the governance system to aim for a destination and get there. The
usefulness of this motoring analogy ends here and serves as an indirect way of making the point that
water governance is not a mechanical process, but involves some very complex, dynamic and adaptive
systems making water governance a more challenging process than steering a car.
Government is only one actor in water governance. The governance of water is enacted through the
interaction between complex systems, for example: 1) a complex hydrologic system, containing plants,
animals and physical elements such as soil, air, and water which is dependent on solar energy and
through which the occurrence, and replenishment of, fresh water occurs through hydrological
processes in combination with biological metabolic processes; 2) socio-biological systems in which
humans, and indeed all life, must have fresh water for survival, and humans throughout millennia have
constructed their societies and cultures around the availability of fresh water; and 3) New Zealand’s
socio-economic system, which demands and relies upon the use of fresh water as a major contributor
to human health, food production and economic productivity, and often degrades the quality of the
water used through its processes. For the purposes of my argument here, the political and regulatory
systems are subsystems within the socio-economic system.
Taken together, these three systems are interdependent and form a very complex macro system
involving interaction of all the systems described in the previous paragraph. This macro system is an
adaptive one in which many interdependent actors (e.g. individuals, regulatory authorities such as
regional councils, decision makers in various levels of government, iwi/hapū, businesses) as well as
inanimate components (water, solutes, soils, landforms, built environments) interact in various
overlapping, decision-making arenas (national, regional, local) and are influenced by a variety of
institutional frameworks2 (e.g. Parliamentary Acts, Regional Plans, local water agreements). Both the
actors and the institutional settings undergo constant changes, in nonlinear, self-organising ways, as
they influence and are influenced by each other, making it difficult to grapple with water governance
other than in complexity terms.
In the following sections it will be argued that water governance is an emergent product of
interactions between the systems outlined above and cannot be understood, predicted or controlled
2
Some of the actors and the institutional frameworks are referenced in the chronology of policy changes found in Appendix 1.
6
through dissection into its component parts. This has implications for government, non-government
and other actors in water governance processes and for the assurance of the quality of governance.
In order to describe and intervene in water governance, we need to be able to see the complex whole
and also to understand the operation of the generative micro-processes that have created that whole.
And, because these micro-processes are neither linear nor predictable, then we must take this into
account in the design and operation of the modes and means of intervention (see for example, Innes
& Booher, 2010; Teisman, van Buuren, & Gerrits, 2009; Verweij & Thompson, 2006).
4. Water boundaries
Before going further, I should be clear about what ‘water’ is to be governed and which qualitative
aspects of water are considered important for governance purposes. The Resource Management Act
1991 (RMA) provides a legal framework for water governance and vests much of the responsibility for
its operation in the hands of regional councils. The Act specifies ‘water in all its physical forms whether
flowing or not and whether under or over the ground’. It includes fresh water, coastal water and
geothermal water. The RMA contains a list of restrictions about what may be done to water or
discharged into water, unless specifically allowed by permit or otherwise. Thus the RMA makes an
assumption of some natural existing state of water, and a specific permit is required for human activity
to change that state, unless on a very small scale to meet individual domestic needs. Seen through the
systems lens sketched out above, the RMA is concerned with the impact of one system, the socioeconomic system, on the natural water system. The RMA further refers to ‘water quality classes’ and
makes distinctions in limiting the changes that may be made to water quality as a result of use for
particular purposes.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has summarised the science of three current
major threats to water quality: pathogens, sediment, and nutrients. While all three of these might
occur naturally, the activities of people, and the increasing number of people and domesticated
animals, has increased the likelihood of more pathogens which make people and animals sick;
sediments that make clear water murky and blanket stony riverbeds with mud and silt and destroy
habitats; and excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen which cause rampant weed
growth, algal blooms and oxygen depletion. (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2012).
In a more practical way, regional councils charged with managing water quality under the RMA, have
come to refer to ‘three waters’: fresh water, waste water and storm water because of the different
sets of challenges each of these forms present for management. These management challenges are
not static and are constantly modified by human habitation, economic production, built environments
and water use.
7
For effective governance, water cannot be so neatly unbundled. Returning to the three complex
systems introduced above, humans have built their societies around the availability of fresh water
needed for their survival, to grow food and, because of this life-enabling significance, water is often
invested with particular cultural and spiritual values. Fresh life-sustaining water becomes waste water
through biological metabolism and excretion via natural processes that make up the first part of the
bio/geo/hydrological system. As a result of further natural processing in this system, waste water is
cleansed through filtering via soil, absorption by plants, and evaporation into the air. This purified
water later precipitates as fresh water rain, sleet or snow to collect in streams, rivers and dams. Storm
water is created as the result of precipitation and in natural settings is more immediately available for
reabsorption by ground water systems, and use by plants and animals, and so the hydrologic cycle
repeats. In its natural environmental state, this cycle ensures the sustainability of fresh water supply.
Human habitation depends on the availability and continuing supply of potable water which may be
piped for transfer across large areas. In areas of human habitation, storm water travels overland and
picks up various unwanted solutes and suspensions, as well as creating other forms of physical damage
along the way, before ultimately ending up in water catchments of natural or human making and again
entering into the cycle of evaporation and precipitation as fresh water. Fresh water catchments can
suffer a loss of clarity, increases in nutrients and potentially harmful microorganisms through the
addition of large amounts of storm water. While population levels are low and relatively sparse, the
rate of natural recycling by the hydrological system is sufficient to provide a continuing replacement
of contaminated water by fresh water.
In the socio-economic system, agricultural and industrial processes take fresh water from streams and
other fresh water catchments, use it and most often return waste water which, unless well filtered
and treated, usually contains suspensions of insoluble or only partially soluble materials, microorganisms and solutes of soluble ions such as nitrates and phosphates. Human population growth has
meant more people, larger and higher density constructed environments replacing once natural
environments, with all demanding fresh drinking water. Larger population leads to more intensive
farming of livestock, more economic activity and produces more waste water. Economic production
relies upon the reliable availability of water of particular qualities suited to a purpose. Economic
production can also degrade the quality of the water it discharges on a scale and at a rate that
outpaces natural cycles of renewal. With increasing population and levels of agricultural and industrial
production, natural recycling process struggle to keep up the supply of fresh water. Habitat
destruction also brings about the elimination of habitats and organisms that are a vital part of the
natural recycling process.
8
The stylistic narration of the systems at work in the two paragraphs above is used to demonstrate the
interdependence between these complex systems. There are dynamic interactions within and
between the systems. While regulatory authorities like regional councils might with some difficulty
make a temporary operational division between the three different types of water (usually partially
achieved with the help of separating pipes!), the interdependencies between the systems of biological
use of water, natural bio/geophysical recycling, and human domestic and economic use remain. For
life to be sustained, a balance which has regard to the slowest part of the processes involved needs to
be found. That is, natural recycling processes need to be able to keep pace with population and
production, even if they are assisted by conservative use and artificial recycling or purification
processes. The complexity of working within these systems and the multiplicity of different actors
involved in the governance of water contribute to the conclusion that water governance needs to be
treated holistically as a complex adaptive system.
This narration also serves to help make a point which is fundamental to the arguments advanced in
this paper. Humans are not outside of these systems as objective observers, ecosystem services users
and decision makers but are interdependent components of the system whole. In addition, a change
in any one of the constituent complex systems will affect the governance of the whole (see for
example, Allen, Maguire, & McKelvey, 2011; Innes & Booher, 2010; Teisman et al., 2009). For example,
a change in the pattern of economic activity related to farming, particularly in dairying over the last
decade, has produced changes affecting the system whole and has led to more active focus on how
water is governed. The recently released report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment (2013) has drawn attention to how complex and interdependent the interactions
between the economic activity and natural water systems really are.
The interdependencies between the three complex systems within national borders are made more
complex by the fundamental uncertainty that arises from the dynamics of global climate and its effect
on New Zealand weather patterns. Humans have adapted their patterns of water use over the
centuries in interaction with relatively stable historical climate patterns in a particular area. Historical
data about water flows and rainfall will become a less useful basis for decisions making about water
use when climatically caused events such as storms, floods, and droughts exhibit new patterns that
are increasingly significantly different from any historical pattern. It is against this introduction to the
dynamic social complexity affecting the occurrence and use of fresh water that I begin to set out a
framework for understanding water governance.
9
5. What is meant by water governance?
Water permeates ecosystems, jurisdictions, and communities, linking complex and emergent social, cultural, technological and
economic systems. Russell, S., Frame, B., & Lennox, J., 2011
Water governance refers to the processes through which government and non-government actors
and citizens interact to produce rules, practices and behaviours through which water is managed and
outcomes are achieved (see for example, Russell & Frame, 2011). Good governance and effective
governance are not the same thing: good governance has its focus on doing particular things; effective
governance has its focus on achieving the best outcomes for all over time (Perry, 2013). Effective and
sustainable water governance needs to be purposeful and adaptive (Foerster, 2011) if it is to achieve
the outcome of sustainable practices in the use of fresh water and its conservation for subsequent
generations. The institutional context in which water governance takes place in New Zealand is a
complicated one with a number of action arenas which I describe below and have attempted to
summarise in Figure 1.
i)
Multi-layered and complex institutional arenas for decision making
At the national level, there are a number of organisational entities of diverse types: the New Zealand
Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Office of the Auditor General,
and government agencies such as Ministry for the Environment, Department of Conservation, Ministry
for Primary Industries, Ministry of Health, Department for Internal Affairs. Each of these organisations
has some specific or general legal mandate and is responsible for some aspect of the regulatory regime
applying to the governance of water. While Parliament has established the Resource Management Act
as the principal legislation which frames water governance, there are also requirements in other
legislation which affect it. The Parliamentary Commissioner and the Auditor General are authoritative
commentators on the way in which the Act is operating and how effective (or not) other agencies are
in carrying out their responsibilities under the Act. In specific regional geographic contexts, the prime
responsibility achieving the water governance outcomes specified by the RMA rests on Regional
Councils who must work with a variety of individual and organisational actors to achieve a water
governance regime which is consistent with the roles, purposes, and limits specified by the Act. The
RMA therefore shapes and constrains the interactions between the actors in the different arenas.
There is also a Māori dimension which is enshrined in the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, 18403
which guaranteed the Māori chiefs ‘full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and
Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so
3
For readers unfamiliar, a description of the treaty and its articles in English and Māori can be found at:
http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/default.asp
10
long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession’. As well as the duty to protect
and consult with Māori, the Crown has agreed as part of the settlement of historical grievances that
some tribes will have a more active guardianship role for rivers in their rohe 4 . For example, the
Waikato-Tainui tribes now have a co-management role in respect of the Waikato River. Even where
there is no specific agreement as there is in the Waikato instance, there is more general acceptance
by government agencies that Māori tribal authorities and hapū will play a more active role in the
governance of traditional water resources and examples of this will be found in the ‘Examples of Water
Governance at Work’ section which follows.
ii)
Interacting, interdependent complex systems
An institutional analysis alone would be inadequate for understanding the complex interactions
between individual actors and the institutional environment that constrains them (Room, 2011). In
the multi-actor institutional arenas described by Ostrom (2005), the rational actions of individual
actors are constrained by the institutional rules and processes which shape the arena in which
interactions between the actors take place. Ostrom sees each actor ‘self-organising’, taking into
account the institutional constraints and the actions of others, to decide whether to participate in the
consumption of common pool resources.
Room (2011) suggests that we also need to understand the consequences of a complex adaptive
system at work and the implications for how government agencies (and other actors) might work in
such a system. In this conceptualisation, the human actors are part of a series of nested systems that
make up the whole. In a complex adaptive system the individual actors are constantly responding to
each other and their institutional setting in not completely predictable sequences of action, reaction
and counteraction (Innes & Booher, 2010; Teisman et al., 2009). Room suggests that the interactions
are less like the predictability of putting on a golf green and more like trying to initiate a similar action
in a child’s crowded bouncy castle where the movement of the castle makes one’s own actions less
predictable and more prone to being affected not only by the movement of the castle but also by the
unpredictable movements of other actors. He suggests an agile approach in which government actors
might see their roles more as tuners, energisers and stewards; seeking to detect feedback loops and
identify tipping points where the trajectory of the governance system is moving in some desired
direction, and therefore assisted in that direction if desirable, or dissuaded if undesirable (see also
Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).
4
Tribal area.
11
Figure 1: New Zealand’s Water Governance Regime
iii) Adaptive and sustainable
Recent literature on water governance suggests that it needs to be sustainable, that is, able to deliver
an acceptable result trajectory over time (Rau & Edmondson, 2013), and be adaptive, that is, the
governance process producing the governance outcomes must be able to adjust in response to
changes elsewhere in the systems affecting the governance system. Wiek and Larson (2012) sum up
four dimensions of sustainable water governance consistently encountered in reviews of such
academic literature:
1) a systemic perspective that links ecological, social, economic, technical, legal, cultural and
other aspect of the local or regional water system is necessary for understanding the ubiquity
and wickedness of water resource challenges and developing robust governance strategies;
2) a governance focus on the social actors is necessary for understanding who is causing or
contributing to the problems and who is willing or ought to be doing what to mitigate and
solve problems;
12
3) a transparent and accessible discourse on values and goals helps to specify, reveal and
negotiate tangible needs, preferences and visions among regional and local stakeholders and
their implications for water systems; and
4) a comprehensive perspective on water sustainability that accounts for the richness of the
sustainability paradigm, including social-ecological integrity, sufficient livelihoods, social
justice, and intergenerational equity, while avoiding a path towards solutions for isolated
problems that might be ineffective, inefficient, inequitable or even counterproductive with
respect to other problems.
The framework for analysing and assessing water governance regimes put forward by Wiek and Larson
(2012) is composed of a number of elements which collectively contribute to the governance regime.
Firstly, the boundaries of social-ecological and hydrologic systems must be scoped and delineated in
ways that do not lose sight of ‘the interactions between political units of decision making, where
power and authority to implement societal actions and policies typically resides, and the biophysical
interfaces of hydro-ecological resources and processes’ (p. 3156, and see Figure 2, I). Secondly, the
governance system is further defined by a focus on people’s actions and activities related to water
resources: where water comes from; how supplies are accessed and managed; where water goes, i.e.
how it its distributed to users by engineered and natural means, and how people use and conserve
water for various purposes, ‘including human, economic, and ecological needs and wants’ (p. 3157);
outflows – i.e. what happens to water after it has been used; and cross-cutting activities that affect
the former domains such as planning, monitoring deliberation and advocacy (see Figure 2, II). Thirdly,
the systemic cause-effect structure creates a dynamic systems view of the interactions between actors
and the rules that influence them, the interfaces between the systems and any factors beyond the
boundaries which influence the regional water system or its governance regime. Such a governance
regime is supported by a multi-layered information system and the dynamic models that this
information generates over time (Figure 3).
Analysis of the water governance regime in operation in a particular context along the lines outlined
above is accompanied by judgement about the sustainability of the regime. Wiek and Larson (2012)
suggest seven principles are necessary (see column 1 in Figure 4). Their principles allow for the
multiple interests in water governance (see Principles 4 and 5: Socio-ecological civility and democratic
governance; and inter- and intra-generational equity) and the changing risks to sustainability that arise
from the impacts of the effects of climate change on hydrological systems (see principle 7: Precaution
(mitigation and adaptability)), but do not emphasise these sufficiently.
13
Figure 2: Governance Regime analytical framework (Wiek & Larson, 2012)
Figure 3: Framework for integrated analysis (Wiek & Larson, 2012)
Returning to Perry’s distinction between good governance and effective governance, a distinction is
to be made between what must be done (according to the law or policy) and what ought to be done
(for the sustainability of the resource for future generations) (Perry, 2013, pp. 96, 98). While good is
politically determined by governments, effective is much more open to a range of perspectives. In
New Zealand (and probably also in other jurisdictions) the incentives on governments to adequately
weigh intergenerational trade-offs are weak. The multiple governmental agencies with jurisdictional
responsibility also contribute to bounded, and not always consistent, institutional framings of the
issues and solutions. Even if governments seek to impose a particular institutional framing, the
outcomes from the interactions of the social, economic and natural systems with the processes
imposed by the chosen frame are uncertain. This is because the individual systems will adapt in
unpredictable ways in response to the institutional processes and each other’s responses. This means
that the processes which lead to effective governance are nonlinear and cannot be fully prescribed at
14
the outset or by following a rigid template. Effective governance emerges from the interactions among
the complex natural bio/geo/physical systems, and the human social and economic system, including
its regulatory and political systems. It is not static but constantly changing. Therefore to be effective,
governance needs be continuously sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007) and adaptive
to changes in all of these systems and their processes in a way that takes into account the dynamic
whole to maintain a desired governance outcome.
Before considering the implications such a conclusion might have for water governance, the next
section draws a picture of some of the richness of the current New Zealand context where effective
governance needs to operate and looks for insights that might be available to us from current
experiments in governance practice.
15
Figure 4: Principles for assessment of sustainability (Wiek & Larson, 2012)
16
6. Examples of water governance at work
Resolving complexity of the watery sort into settled policy is what governments are for.
Colin James, 11 September 2012
In the preceding sections of this paper I have argued that effective water governance is the product
of interactions between complex systems that over time produce a purposeful, sustainable and
adaptive outcome. Far from the claim by political observer and columnist Colin James at the head of
this section, governments are only one actor, albeit an important and powerful one in these complex
systems and they are limited in what they can do to influence these interactions.
In the absence of an embedded approach to long-term effective water governance in New Zealand,
what might be learned from innovative practice which is currently occurring? Because of its longerterm nature, we are unlikely to see every aspect of effective governance in a particular context or at
a particular point in time. And yet we do have some very interesting and positive experiments into
new ways of governing water which appear to be trending in the direction of effective and sustainable
described in the previous section.
So in this section, I have chosen a number of examples which, when seen over time, might represent
aspects or parts of an emerging sustainable water governance regime. In these examples, we can see
patterns of how aspects of such governance systems are initiated, as well as features that might begin
to establish their sustainable and adaptive features. I have also included an example to illustrate very
clearly where the pitfalls lie (Canterbury). The examples were chosen because they are widely judged
to have brought about a series of framings of water governance, decisions or recommendations,
generally using collaborative processes which have advanced the governance of water in a positive
way beyond the status quo. The examples chosen include: the Land and Water Forum, Lake Taupo,
the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, and Horizons Regional
Council and the Manawatu River Leaders Accord. These are only a few of the more prominent and
better documented examples of water governance experimentation going on around the country and
the list is certainly not an exhaustive one.
1) Land and Water Forum
In 2009, after a decade of stalled progress on the development policy frameworks for water
governance, ministers tasked a group which became known as the Land and Water Forum with
conducting a stakeholder-led collaborative governance process to recommend potential reform of
New Zealand’s fresh water management; using a consensus process, it was to identify shared
outcomes and goals for fresh water and options to achieve the shared outcomes and goals.
17
Over three years, the Forum engaged in a collaborative learning, deliberation and consultation
involving people from over 50 bodies interested in water governance and water quality and produced
three reports which were widely consulted upon and have now been accepted by government as the
basis for the next phase of fresh water policy reform. The work and operation of the Forum has been
documented in a separated case study (Eppel, 2013). Ministers have credited the Land and Water
Forum with helping to shape the approach to water governance the government has adopted
(Ministry for the Environment, 2013).
The defining attributes of collaborative governance in the experience of the Land and Water Forum,
as seen by the members of the Forum themselves included:
a. It is open to all interested groups to send their own representatives (and in the case of a
catchment the process should be open to all landholders) and includes iwi representation
b. It operates with a consensus rule
c. It has a skilled independent facilitator/chair
d. Where a consensus cannot be reached options should be set out
e. It is supported by the provision of information on economic, social, cultural and
environmental aspects of resources and their management, and by scientific information
about them, in order to allow the participants to come to an integrated understanding
f. It has a mandate from a public decision-making body to address an issue or group of
related issues, and reports to that body, but it can also be an applicant-led process
undertaken in support of an identified development project, or come about through a
community or industry initiative.
g. It has a realistic timetable within which it is required to complete its work. Collaborative
processes take time but need time constraints.
h. It is resourced to do its work. Funding may come from the decision-making body and
participants may also contribute resources. It is important that the resources that the
collaborative process has at its disposal are utilised for the benefit of the process as a
whole5.
5
http://www.landandwater.org.nz/index_files/releases.htm)
18
2) Lake Taupo
Lake Taupo is New Zealand’s biggest natural lake. Water quality in the lake had been declining due to
increased concentrations of nitrogen leaching from the surrounding land. The result was increased
algal growth and decreased water clarity. A Lakes and Waterways Action Group was set up in 1997, as
a group of community members interested in taking care of Lake Taupo and advocating for the
protection of Lake Taupo-nui-a-Tia and its waterways and other local catchment environments.
Ngati Tuwharetoa, as kaitiaki6 of the Lake, is a partner in the programme to protect it. In July 2001,
Tuwharetoa Māori Trust Board and Environment Waikato signed a ‘Sustainable Management Fund’
contract with the Ministry for the Environment to develop an integrated sustainable development
strategy to protect Lake Taupo-nui-a-Tia and the catchment, taking into account the community and
iwi values that had been identified as priorities. The Lake Taupo Protection Trust was set up in
February 2007 to administer the $81.5 million fund to protect Lake Taupo's water quality from the
effects of past and current land use activities. The Trust was charged with developing a programme of
work between 2007 and 2022 to reduce the amount of manageable nitrogen flowing into the lake by
20 per cent. The fund is used to encourage and assist land use change, to purchase land/nitrogen in
the Lake Taupo catchment and to fund any other initiatives that assist land owners to reduce the
nitrogen impact of their activities on Lake Taupo. The Trust reports to the Government through the
Ministry for the Environment, Ngati Tuwharetoa, the Taupo District Council, and Waikato Regional
Council.
2020 Taupo-nui-a-Tia Action Plan (2020 TAP) is a community and Ngati Tuwharetoa-owned plan which
now documents agreed action and monitoring responsibilities to implement the Lake Taupo Strategy.
The project was the first time a sustainable development strategy had been undertaken jointly by
tangata whenua, the community and local and central Government agencies. The implementation of
the 2020 TAP is overseen by a Joint Management Group. The Joint Management Group comprises a
partnership from central and local government, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and the community. Organisations
involved in this partnership include the Department of Conservation, Department of Internal Affairs
(represented by the Harbour Master – Lake Taupo), Environment Waikato, Taupo District Council,
Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, Tūwharetoa economic authorities and the Lakes and Waterways
Action Group.
6
Guardians
19
The Action Plan, contains 82 actions that have been designed to achieve a number of community
values for the lake:
• clear water
• high quality inflowing water
• diverse plants and animals in lakes and rivers
• good trout fishing
• recreational opportunities
• foreshore reserves
• safe drinking water
• safe swimming
• weed-free lake
• wilderness area
• outstanding scenery
• geological features
• Ngāti Tūwharetoa values
• commercial opportunities.
Waikato Regional Council proposed ‘Variation No. 5 - Lake Taupo Catchment’ to the Waikato Regional
Plan in 2005, which became operative on Thursday, 7 July 2011 after a process of submissions on the
proposal and a subsequent Environment Court appeal which largely upheld the proposed variation.
New rules in the variation include: limiting the annual average amount of nitrogen leached from rural
land use activities (dairy and drystock farming will require resource consents); limiting the amount of
nitrogen leached from new wastewater discharges (on-site or community systems); requiring a high
standard of nitrogen removal from wastewater systems near to the lakeshore; allowing nitrogen
offsetting between properties to provide flexibility for landowners to meet the new rule requirements.
Policies in the variation include: working with Taupo District Council and other stakeholders to
promote community wastewater upgrades; working in partnership with Tuwharetoa as kaitiaki7 of the
lake; supporting the 2020 Taupo-nui-a-Tia action plan to recognise and provide for other
environmental, social, cultural and economic values when managing land use change; supporting
research and development into profitable and viable low nitrogen rural land uses; using public funds
7
Guardians
20
administered by the Lake Taupo Protection Trust to reduce manageable nitrogen losses to the lake by
20 per cent.
3) Canterbury Water Management Strategy
‘In the last decade pressure on Canterbury’s water resource has increased significantly and with it has emerged a highly adversarial
approach to allocation and management, infrastructure provision, and related land management practices which has exacerbated the
situation leading to sub-optimal outcomes…. Compiling this strategy has demonstrated that there is a better way forward, based on
collaboration and integrated management that will maximise the opportunities for the environment, economy and community of
Canterbury in the years ahead’ (Canterbury Mayoral Forum, 2010, p. 1).
This statement from the preface of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) alludes to
the context in which the strategy was developed and the rising interest in, and perhaps even
commitment to, more collaborative approaches to water governance in Canterbury. The strategy was
developed by a Steering Group under the auspices of Canterbury Mayoral Forum, using consultation
powers under the Local Government Act. The development was in response to serious concerns about
the state of Canterbury’s river systems and the environment affecting them seen from multiple
perspectives:

Pressure on river systems – run-of-river takes are near the limit of what can be safely
abstracted while maintaining environmental flows; and restrictions are already widely in use,
with the greatest pressure on lowland streams

Pressure on aquifer systems – ten red zones in Canterbury, where water has been fully
allocated, and four ‘yellow zones’, where allocation exceeds 80% of the allocation limit

Cumulative effects on ecosystems – remaining indigenous vegetation in lowland and coastal
areas, tends to occur in small, scattered fragments; less than 10% of the region’s previously
extensive wetlands remain; a general decline in fresh water biodiversity; accelerating land use
change and intensification in parts of the hill and high country is threatening the important
indigenous habitat that remains

Cultural health of waterways

Water use efficiency – some substantial efficiency gains could be made

Climate change – projections suggest the Canterbury will become drier and need more
irrigation simply to maintain existing outputs from the land; natural systems for delivering
water will become less reliable and therefore less able to support current levels of output

Water quality impairment issues – if there are to be substantial increases in land-uses
associated with nitrogen leaching, then there must be a corresponding decrease in nutrient
leaching from existing land; modelling suggests it will be possible to substantially increase
agricultural output while maintaining groundwater quality within acceptable limits as long as
land management practices and technologies that reduce nutrients and other contaminants
21
are applied across the region; to achieve this outcome will require existing users of water as
well as new users to adopt the improved land management practices and technologies

Infrastructure issues – new infrastructure needs to be introduced in conjunction with much
more efficient use of water, both by existing users and new users to reduce the scale of new
infrastructure requirements to manageable levels; new ways must be found to harness the
knowledge and experience of existing irrigators in conjunction with external world class
engineering, financial and management resources to build the next generation of storage.
Inclusion of CWMS as an exemplar in this section might to some seem questionable because of events
that occurred towards the conclusion of the development of the Strategy and its still contested results.
It is included here because it illustrates the complex interactions between different action arenas at
national and regional level, and also the extent to which the economic system can bring about changes
in the natural hydrologic systems.
The elected statutory body responsible for environmental management in the Canterbury region,
Environment Canterbury (or ECan as it is often called) was dismissed by the Minister in 2010 (see
Appendix 2: pp. 32-34) and replaced by a set of government-appointed Commissioners. As well as
suspending the normal democratic processes for the election of Regional Councillors for two elections,
government passed a new Act to give the Commissioners powers and exemptions from the provisions
of the RMA unavailable to any other regional council (Brower, 2010). According to Brower (2010) the
ECan Act came about at the urging of the Mayoral Forum and arose out of long-standing and
widespread criticism of ECan from many quarters: too much water abstraction from the
environmentalists; too little, too costly, and too slow allowance of consents from the farmers and
other water users. Since 2010, the ECan Commissioners have been responsible for decisions regarding
water quality, use and conservation made under the RMA or the more permissive ECan Act, and have
continued with the implementation of the CWMS.
The CWMS included notions of 1) parallel development – that environmental and production-related
objectives can be advanced in parallel to achieve ‘balanced progress’; 2) new water resources can be
sourced from irrigation efficiency, and building new water impoundments for alpine catchments
which can be used in times of rainfall shortage; 3) brokering between holders of existing rights and
water permits in return for lower cost or more reliable sources or both. Because of the complicated
pattern of existing irrigation schemes which have built up in over 175 years of settlement and farming
in Canterbury and cutting across natural river catchment systems, a series of 11 ‘zone committees’
have been established to advise the regional council on the contents of the Canterbury Regional
22
Council Long Term Plan 2012-2022 for a particular zone. These are appointed, not elected, bodies,
although the Council calls publicly for expressions of interest in participating.
Russell and Ward (2011) have noted the opportunities for citizen participation which the development
of CWMS afforded and the benefits this brought. Environmentalist Guy Salmon has called the
development of the CWMS a process of ‘guided collaborative governance’ (Salmon, 2012). In his
report on the development of the Strategy, Salmon focused only on ‘accountable’ stakeholders, i.e.
those involved in ‘a deliberative process for building informed consensus amongst accountable 8
stakeholder representatives about how to resolve a policy issue’ (p. 12). Salmon analysed the
development of the CWMS through three questions about the process: 1) in what sense was it
democratic? 2) how effective was it in achieving an integration of different policy perspectives? 3)
how did it alter the institutional norms, incentives and risks facing resource users and the Government?
Salmon concluded that the outcomes of the CWMS Steering Group process were shaped by five main
institutional and policy elements affecting participants’ decision-making, which he summarised as:
1. The extended stalemate between irrigation and environmental interests, in which neither
side was confident it could achieve its objectives without the agreement of the other side;
2. The persistent framing of the main policy problem as water being unavailable where and
when required, thus implying a need for storage as part of the solution;
3. The centrally-determined selection of Steering Group members and in particular, the noninclusion of advocates for sharing of the economic benefits of irrigation;
4. The options facing group members, either within or outside the collaborative process, for
progressing their interests and projects; especially the existence of alternative statutory
processes and litigation opportunities; and
5. The expectation that central government funding would be available to assist the provision
of irrigation storage schemes in Canterbury and thus overcome the economic and financial
barriers to their being built.
In Salmon’s view, the resulting architecture of the Strategy, as agreed upon by representatives of
central, regional and local government, as well as regional stakeholder representatives, relies heavily
on two key assumptions: 1) that rural landholders can successfully be incentivised to cooperate in the
achievement of the water quality and quantity targets which the Strategy propounds, through
provision of new, low cost, more reliable water for irrigation from new water storage infrastructure;
2) that the three proposed water storage projects will indeed be provided, whether or not they are
economically viable and capable of being privately financed. Salmon also points out a number of
8
Authors’emphasis
23
deficits in the CWMS process which may yet affect the final outcome for water governance in
Canterbury. There was an absence of representatives of the view that the economic benefits of water
use by commercial irrigators should be shared along with the costs. Government has since budgeted
$435 million to support accelerated development of irrigation projects in the region which, given
important uncertainties about the costs and revenues of the projects, might see the New Zealand
taxpayer and rate-payers of Canterbury bearing the cost and the risk of increased irrigation (and the
agricultural development which will follow) disproportionately to the benefits received.
Notwithstanding the ‘collaborative approach’ to the development of CWMS, its implementation offers
many challenges for finding balanced, adaptable and sustainable solutions at the zone level. When
government made it a requirement under its new National Policy Statement for Freshwater in 2011
that regional councils must set limits on both water quality and quantity for all the fresh water sources
in their area by the end of 2013, ECan took the staged approach available to it and has approved an
implementation plan that stretches across its zones from 2013-2020, one of the longest stagedimplementation timeframes approved by any regional council 9 . To many these are long timelines
during which existing water user’s benefit, and longer-term, perhaps unrecoverable inroads are made
on water quality and the capacity of the ecosystems to recover. The Parliamentary Commissioner for
the Environment has made this point most vividly in her recent publication (Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment, 2013).
From an examination of the membership of the Zone Committees, most seem to have agricultural
user and iwi perspectives covered, but the breadth of other perspectives included is unclear, as are
the criteria by which Zone Committees are appointed. Other lobbyists are concerned about the
undemocratic processes used to select the Zone Committees and their lack of accountability to the
citizens whose long-term interests their recommendations affect. Further large-scale projects, for
example, the Central Plains Irrigation Scheme, as well as smaller schemes are seeking consents
through the processes available to them. These schemes represent tests to the inclusiveness of the
interests that are part of any decisions made and ultimately how the human, natural physical and
economic systems interactions play out over time, especially since some system changes are not
reversible.
9
See http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/central/nps/progressive -implementation-programme.html
24
4) Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere: the role of Māori people in water governance
"Te Waihora was once a considerable tribal resource known as Te Kete Ika a Rākaihautū - The Fish Basket of Rākaihautū. Today, it is
one of New Zealand's most polluted lakes. It is going to take considerable time, effort and resource to restore and rejuvenate the many
values of Te Waihora." Mark Solomon, Kaiwhakahaere, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 10
Te Waihora is a nationally significant wetland with special significance for Ngāi Tahu, especially
mahinga kai, the customary fishery and kaitiakitanga. The restoration and rejuvenation of the mauri11
and ecosystem health of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere has been confirmed with the signing of Whakaora
Te Waihora, a long-term relationship agreement and shared commitment between Environment
Canterbury, Ngāi Tahu and Te Waihora Management Board. The parties have also signed an interim
co-governance agreement which establishes an enduring co-governance framework for the active
management of Te Waihora and its catchment.
These agreements signalled the start of a new approach to management of natural resources in
Canterbury, bringing together the tikanga responsibilities of Ngāi Tahu and the statutory
responsibilities of Environment Canterbury. According to the Environment Canterbury Chair of
Commissioners, Dame Margaret Bazley, the agreement with Ngāi Tahu is an important milestone in
the life of Environment Canterbury because it is ‘forging a way in which iwi and regional government
can work together for common goals’.
According to its website, Whakaora te Waihora is a long term (35 year), intergenerational project and
its success will depend on the support of and collective contributions from central and local
government, tangata whenua, industry, tertiary institutions, non-government organisations,
landowners and members of the community. As announced by the Government in August 2011, $11.6
million has been committed to clean up the lake made up of contributions of:
• $6.1 million from the Government
• $3.5 million from Environment Canterbury
• $1.3 million from Fonterra
• $500,000 from Ngāi Tahu
• The balance from Selwyn District Council, Waihora Ellesmere Trust and Lincoln University.
Volunteer groups, the universities, CRIs and the local community, are also a vital part of this project.
Because of the interdependence of the areas covered by the Whakaora te Waihora plan and other
developments on the Canterbury plains, such as the Central Plains Irrigation Project, it is too soon to
10
http://tewaihora.org/
11
Life force
25
say if the early moral and financial commitments made by all the partners to the agreement, and the
early achievements can be sustained to achieve their vision.
5) Horizons Regional Council and the Manawatu River Leaders Accord
Early in 2010 the chairman of Horizons Regional Council invited key leaders with an interest in the
Manawatu River to meet and discuss the state of the river. The leaders represent those sectors and
groups that have an impact on or interest in the river: local government, iwi, farming, industry and
environmental. The leaders agreed that the state of the Manawatu River is unacceptable and the
community wants it “cleaned up”. This group set goals to guide a community wide process of
improvement which were recorded in the Manawatu River Leaders Accord 12 , signed by iwi/hapū,
environmental interest groups, farming and industry groups, the local council and the regional council,
set out below:
Our Focus is the whole of the Manawatu River Catchment as it affects the mauri (life-force)
and ecological health of the Manawatu River and its tributaries; to take ownership of the
issues and their solutions; and the rehabilitation and protection of the health and well-being
of the Manawatu River Catchment for future generations.
Our Vision: Kei te ora te wai, kei te ora te whenua, kei te ora te tangata. /If the water is healthy,
the land and the people are nourished.
The signatories to the Accord noted that the Manawatu River flows through a developed landscape
that provides important social, cultural and economic benefits. They acknowledged that the
community has concerns about the poor state of the river, which has been described as ‘dirty, lacking
life and culturally compromised’. The Accord signatories have set a goal to ‘improve the Manawatu
River, the mauri of the Manawatu River Catchment, such that it sustains fish species, and is suitable
for contact recreation, in balance with the social, cultural and economic activities of the catchment
community’ because ‘people living in and around the Manawatu River want to be able to appreciate
and enjoy the river by swimming in it, taking food from it, using it as a water source and protecting its
cultural values’. They want to ‘develop leadership in catchment improvement and capture the social
and economic benefits of such leadership’ so that:
•
The Manawatu River becomes a source of regional pride and mana.
•
Waterways in the Manawatu Catchment are safe, accessible, swimmable, and provide
good recreation and food resources.
12
http://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing-environment/resource-management/water/manawatu-river-leaders-accord
26
•
The Manawatu Catchment and waterways are returned to a healthy condition.
•
Sustainable use of the land and water resources of the Manawatu Catchment continues
to underpin the economic prosperity of the region.
The Accord Leaders commitment was to:
1. Establish a collaboratively owned and implemented Action Plan by March 2011 ready for
implementation by 1 July 2011 that will recommend targets for improvements, timeframes
for achieving the targets, identify actions and opportunities, and include indicators and
methods of monitoring.
2. Work together positively and collaboratively towards achieving our goals and realising the
vision.
3. Keep the community informed of our goals and progress towards them.
4. Advocate for our vision and goals.
5. Meet as leader’s forum at least twice a year to receive reports on progress and provide
guidance to those implementing the Action Plan.
The Manawatu Action Plan 2011 13 set out the key actions and activities to be undertaken, and by
whom, to achieve the goals established by the Accord; progress is reported to the Leaders group. The
Action plan has been developed against the backdrop of the Horizons Regional Council’s new regional
plan to guide the management of natural resources, referred to as the One Plan because it weaves
together the six separate plans and Regional Policy Statement into one document. The One Plan has
yet to be adopted because it has been subject to contestation in the Environment Court since 2009. A
Court mediated resolution is now emerging and the Plan will need to be updated to give effect to the
National Policy Statement which came into force in 2011.
The Manawatu Action plan represents one local process, involving representatives of key stakeholders
whose collaboration is necessary for giving effect to the Plan. The Action Plan requires sophisticated
information systems which might be capable of matching what is required by the effective governance
regime advanced by Wiek and Larson (2012). Sub models simulating the dynamics of five “spheres” the Biosphere, the Lithosphere, the Atmosphere, the Hydrosphere and the Anthroposphere (the
human dimension) spatially across the landscape are being developed.
13
http://www.horizons.govt.nz/assets/Managing-our-Enviroment/Resource-Management/Manawatu-River-Leaders-Forum-Action-Planelectronic.pdf
27
Some lessons from the Examples of Collaborative Governance at Work
The five exemplars presented above illustrate aspects of how complex collaborative governance
systems operate. Firstly, none of the systems involved is static. The natural systems, the human social
systems, and the economic systems are all undergoing changes in response to each other as well as
to systems outside of the current consideration, such as the global climate system and the global
financial system. Increasing economic use of water in agriculture is altering the natural system but it
is also altering the societal patterns through changes in lifestyles and the intensity of economic activity
such as dairying. In the areas chosen, which are by no means the only examples available, there
appears to be an acceptance that no one person or group of interests have sufficient knowledge or
resources for the effective governance of fresh water. Collaborative processes have been used as a
way in which the complexity of the changes these systems are undergoing can been accommodated
in management decisions. The collaborative processes bring the knowledge and resources of all of the
groups involved into play, and allow collaborative learning (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011; Gerlak
& Heikkila, 2011), adaptation, and emergence of creative solutions to occur. The overall effect is
something approaching Wiek and Larson’s (2012) sustainable governance regime.
Each example chosen is at different stage in its evolution and it is clear that New Zealand is in the early
stages of learning how to do collaborative governance well. The Treaty of Waitangi and settlements
made through the Tribunal process have had an effect on the willingness of government and its
various agencies to work with Māori iwi and hapū in co-management arrangements in particular areas.
Māori involvement brings a diverse set of perspectives which include traditional spiritual and cultural
values into play but also more recent post-settlement values associated with ownership and economic
development. Advocates for economic development spanning interests in maintenance or
enhancement of the natural water qualities, such as tourism and water recreation and sporting
activities, as well as those who would like to reshape the natural environment to suit a different
economic purpose, such as increased dairy production, bring a second set of diverse perspectives; so,
too, scientists and technicians with knowledge of how natural systems function and remain selfsustaining. The collaborative process is requiring people from these diverse perspectives to learn more
about what they each know and understand about water use and to use the processes to generate
new knowledge and workable solutions for both the shorter and longer term that integrate these
different system views. The overall effect is something tending in a direction that could be capable of
achieving Wiek and Larson’s (2012) sustainable governance regime, with some distance to go to
become an embedded national regime.
28
7. Implications for Effective Water Governance in New Zealand
A government is only one actor in effective water governance, albeit an important and powerful one.
Given the nonlinear behaviour of complex adaptive systems, one actor’s intention or power does not
translate so simply to what actually happens in the interactions between complex systems.
Governments and other actors are limited in what they can do to effectively influence these
interactions if the outcome wanted is a sustainable one rather than alternating crises of either the
social, economic or environmental sort or even all three together. When it comes to governance of
complex systems, power does not have the direct and predictable outcome that some might expect,
like, for example, power steering in a more mechanical system such as the car analogy in the
introduction. The processes of effective governance are not so linear. Ideas and actions will influence
further development of ideas and actions in response. Rather than plan, command and control, new
roles are needed to be able to detect feedback loops, identify tipping points in trajectories. Room
(2011) calls these tuners, energisers and stewards.
It was argued in the early sections of the paper that a water governance system is an emergent product
of the nonlinear interactions between other very complex systems (social, economic and natural). For
the governance system to be adaptable and sustainable, the implications of complexity need to be
built into its design and operation. If the implications of complexity are not designed in, that does not
mean a simpler system. It means instead that we are operating with a model of a too simple system
that is constantly found to fail to adequately cope with the interactions the real world presents to it
and is constantly caught by surprise events that the simple system could not anticipate (see for
example, Eppel, 2012; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).
The governance system consists of a large number of diverse parts (people, and other organisms, roles
and organisations, institutions and rules, and inanimate natural components). These function in a
variety of functional ways which are not always evident or easily understood. People within these
structures operate through intricate social, cultural, legal and organisational frameworks governing
their operation, often using tacit knowledge of how these systems work. This can lead to bounded
understanding of issues, and path dependency in the decision responses of people and organisations
to changes elsewhere. Consequently water governance has large elements of ambiguity in the
understanding of the water governance context and uncertainty about how different parts of the
system will respond to changes internal to the governance system but also external changes such as
global climate or financial changes.
The institutional capabilities in the current system are bounded within traditional, and artificially
segmented roles. For example, regional councils have traditionally been responsible for producing
29
long term plans and consulting on those plans before putting them into practice. Regional council
expertise therefore has been in the information gathering and synthesis tasks involved. A move to
more collaborative approaches such as the one foreshadowed in A Freshstart of Fresh Water (see
Figure 5) introduces the need for different capabilities. Some examples include: identifying new types
of knowledge and information which may be relevant and recognising that the council does not
currently have that information nor the means and capability to generate it; designing processes to
enable those with different knowledge and perspectives to share it; being able to facilitate
collaborative engagement and learning processes; and translating the outcome of collaborative
processes into artifacts (documents and the like) that trigger wide ownership and selective action.
A consequence of the dynamism of the systems to be governed is that these systems will continue to
change and therefore any solutions reached are only an ongoing set of approximations or clumsy
solutions (Verweij, Thompson, & Engel, 2006). Thus, there must be ongoing adaptive learning which
takes into account changes in the systems, especially those changes which might appear ‘not to fit’
the present understanding of how things are working (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007); there must also be
adaptive capacities built into the creation and execution of plans developed as part of water
governance.
Collaborative processes take time to build the capacity needed for their effective collaborative
operation and therefore they may not appear as quick or timely as more structured, segmented or
closed processes, but the results are likely to be more resilient and sustainable if the collaborative
processes have been well conducted. The temptation for central government to intervene in
collaborative governance processes which to the outside may appear messy and inconclusive will be
strong but such intervention will come at the price of lost collaborative capital and also the loss of
more sustainable and lasting solutions.
There is much to learn about whether there are regularities about how local context and governance
processes interact to produce effective outcomes. To date, New Zealand has been experimenting. Can
these experiments lead to a better understanding of the processes, and the micro-macro mechanisms
generated, that reliably lead to effective water governance? There is not yet a history of successful
collaborative governance in New Zealand and therefore the default of central government, the media
and the public will be to compare what they see and experience with traditional, linear, top-down
governance. For this reason alone the current experiments need to be documented and learned from.
But they are also creating new knowledge of how successful sustainable and adaptive water
governance is done and we need to systematically collect data from these exemplars and search for
30
the regularities that might lead to new understanding of the mechanisms through which effective
governance of water occurs.
31
Figure 5: Proposed framework for managing fresh water (Ministry for the Environment, 2013)
32
Appendix 1: Some Actor and Institutions involved in Water Governance at National Level
Table1: Actors and institutional arrangements affecting the governance of fresh water
Some Recent
History of
Water
Governance
in New
Zealand*
Actors
Institutions
(Laws, rules, procedures, processes)
Minister for the Environment shall have the
following functions (inter alia):

Recommendation of the issue of
national policy statements

Recommendation of making of
national environmental standards

May investigate the failure or
omission by a local authority to
exercise or perform any of its
functions, powers or duties
Where the functions, powers or duties under
the Act are not being performed to achieve the
purpose of the Act, then the Minister may
appoint one or more persons to perform all or
any of these functions;
Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991
The purpose of the RMA is to promote sustainable
management of natural and physical resources.
Sustainable management means managing the use,
development and protection of natural and physical resources
in a way, or at a rate, which enable people and communities
to provide of their social, economic, and cultural well-being
and for their health and safety while –
sustaining the potential of the natural and physical resources
to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future
generations; and safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of
air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and avoiding, remedying, or
mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment.
Labour
Government 19871991
Regional Councils shall establish, implement
and review objectives, policies and methods to
achieve the integrated management of natural
and physical resources in its region; control the
taking, use, damming, and diversion of water,
and the control of the quantity, level, and flow
of water in any water body; control the
discharge of contaminants.
Governor General by Order in Council may
make regulations called environmental
standards.
Persons shall recognise matters of national importance
(natural features, habitats, public access, Māori traditions;
and have particular regard to ethic of stewardship, efficient
use, intrinsic value of ecosystems, maintenance and
enhancement of quality, and finite characteristics of natural
resources; and shall take into account the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi.
The RMA allows for:

national and regional policy statements

regulations prescribing national environmental
standards e.g. contaminants, water quality, level or
flow;
National Environmental Standards may permit or restrict an
activity.
Labour-led
Government
1999-2008
2003
Minister for Environment (Marian Hobbs) and
Minister of Agriculture (Jim Sutton) initiate
discussion about pressures on water resources
and the different ways in which New Zealanders
value water.
Minister for the Environment (Marian Hobbs)
set out the Labour Government’s Programme of
Action for sustainable development: ‘It
identifies eight key issues facing the country's
water management system and 13 actions to
improve the water management system’.
33
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
Programme of Action for Sustainable Development calls for
‘strong partnerships between local government, central
government agencies, industry, Māori, and the community to
create innovative and enduring approaches to managing our
water resources’
2003-2008
2003
2004
2005
Ministry for the Environment noted in
Sustainable Development for New Zealand:
Programme of Action that ‘fresh water
allocation and use, water quality issues, and
water bodies of national importance are
fundamental elements for New Zealand’s
sustainable development … a number of waterresource-management issues … must be
addressed … to sustain our economic growth,
natural environment and heritage, and the
health and wellbeing of our people’.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) gave effect
to the Labour Government’s Sustainable Water
Programme of Action (2003 – 2008).
Through 2004 and 2005, MfE officials consulted
with local government, landowners, businesses,
industry groups, sector groups, iwi, community
organisations and individuals on issues facing
fresh water management. The aim was to
identify possible solutions and opportunities for
the future.
Some of the initiatives under this programme
have
continue
under
the
National
Government’s strategy New Start for Fresh
Water, June 2009.
Programme of Action for Sustainable Development was
positioned as a ‘first step in a nationwide consultation
programme, which is part of the sustainable Water
Programme of Action’.
Against the backdrop of a ‘Dirty Dairying’
campaign by environmental advocates,
particularly Fish and Game New Zealand, a
Dairy and Clean Streams Accord (2003) was
negotiated between Fonterra as the cooperative company supplied by 96% of New
Zealand’s dairy farmers, Local Government
New Zealand representing the regional
councils, and the Ministry for the Environment,
and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (later
merged into the Ministry of Primary Industries.
The idea of a voluntary agreement was initiated
by the Chief Executive of Environment Waikato
(Barry Harris) and the Chairman of Fonterra (Sir
Henry van der Hayden) who saw it as a
‘strategic, cohesive, partnership approach’
although the final agreement excluded
Federated Farmers and the other dairy
companies operating at the time.
Associate Minister for Environment (David
Benson-Pope) introduced amendments to the
Resource Management Act 1991 ‘to improve
the quality of decisions and processes while not
compromising environmental outcomes or
sacrificing public participation … increase
certainty, reduce delays and costs, and ensure
consistency of processes’.
More dairy farmers were being penalised in the district courts
for breaches of effluent consents under the Resource
Management Act.
Dairy and Clean Streams Accord (2003) set targets to exclude
cattle from waterways, control the release of effluent and
reduce the run-off of fertilizers and other agricultural
nutrients into lakes and streams.
The pace of ‘diary conversions’ from other farming uses (e.g.
sheep, beef, other) was accelerating, and new large scale
farms were appearing.
Auditor-General examined how two regional
councils, Horizons and Otago manage
competing priorities to both use and protect
our fresh water resources. The A-G notes that
Horizons and Otago Regional Councils ‘have made good
progress in some areas, such as planning and implementing
water allocation frameworks, but improvements need to be
34
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
The Sustainable Water Programme of Action was established
in 2003 with a set of outcomes.
From consultation some common themes emerged about
ways to improve fresh water management:

Greater strategic planning for water, nationally and
regionally.

Clearer direction and guidance from central
government.

Greater consistency in the way increasing demands on
water resources are managed across the country.

A better framework for deciding between conflicting
demands for water.

More effective Māori participation in water
management.

Better management of the impacts of diffuse discharges
on water quality.
Education programmes and other initiatives were run by
Fonterra to assist farmers to meet the Accord targets.
Parliament made changes to Resource Management Act
(RMA) 1991 following review.
‘management of fresh water resources is not a
simple task’.
This report looks at how the Resource
Management Act 1991 framework has been
implemented by the Horizons Regional Council
and the Otago Regional Council for the
management of fresh water in their regions.
made in other areas – particularly compliance and
effectiveness and efficiency monitoring’14
‘Planning documents can be significantly improved by the
inclusion of simply worded, measurable objectives that clearly
set out what the plan intends to achieve, and specifically
outline the environmental state sought. When planning
documents are being prepared, more thought needs to be
given to the drafting of Environmental Results Anticipated
(ERAs). Well-crafted ERAs that state what is intended to be
achieved within the life of the plan can provide a solid basis
for designing procedures for monitoring the effectiveness and
efficiency of policies and methods.’
Office of the Auditor General. (2005). Horizons and Otago Regional Councils:
Management of fresh water resources. Wellington: Office of the Auditor General.
Best practice guidelines for developing regional fresh water
plans were placed on the Quality Planning website.
The Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand Planning
Institute and the Resource Management Law Association
jointly ran workshops for developing second generation
district and regional plans around the country.
OAG identified key areas that both central and local
government need to focus on:

Developing effective solutions to manage diffuse
discharges to water bodies

Improving strategic planning for water

Determining the appropriate level of central
government direction, support and guidance for regional
councils in their management of fresh water and

Obtaining accurate information for making decisions
about water
Cabinet approved a package of actions which included three
instruments for fresh water management:

A National Policy Statement for Freshwater
Management

A National Environmental Standard for Measurement of
Water Takes

A National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows
and Water Levels [CAB Min (06) 11/11 refers]
An agreed joint Māori work programme was also set up, to
enhance Māori participation in fresh water management.
2006
2007
Auditor-General (A-G) saw ‘an opportunity to
assess how well the government’s Programme
of Action was implemented and also to identify
any implications for other complex crossagency work 15p. 5.
A-G said that the Programme of Action sought a different way
of working by requiring central government to work more
collaboratively on complex issues, to better integrate existing
initiatives and to learn from new processes.
A-G identified implications for cross-agency work and for
projects involving both central and local government within
three broad themes: leadership, co-ordination, and
governance; project management and planning; and
accountability through reporting, monitoring, and evaluation.
2008
Minister for the Environment (Trevor Mallard)
appointed a four-person Board of Inquiry to
lead public consultation on the proposed
National Policy Statement for Freshwater
The Sustainable Water Programme of Action (developed
under the auspices of the RMA) and was to have a suite of
national environmental standards that act like regulations
and a National Policy Statement for Freshwater
14
Controller and Auditor-General. (2005). Horizons and Otago Regional Councils: Management of freshwater resources. Wellington: Office
of the Auditor-General, p. 3.
15
Controller and Auditor-General. (2007). Sustainable development: Implementation of the Programme of Action. Wellington: Office of the
Auditor-General.
35
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
September 2008
Management:
Judge
David
Sheppard
(chairperson), Kevin Prime, Jenni Vernon and Dr
Jon Harding as board members.
Management that will be the overarching framework for
water management in New Zealand. Minister for the
Environment (Trevor Mallard) said that ‘some of these
national environmental standards are already being enforced,
others are going through consultation. A drinking water
standard came into effect last month which will protect the
sources of human drinking-water. It does this by requiring
regional councils to consider the effects of activities on
drinking-water sources in their decision making’.
Minister for the Environment (Trevor Mallard)
noted significant management challenge for
Environment Canterbury (ECan) because of
over-allocation of ground water.
In recognition of the challenges ahead for a nationally
consistent approach to water management under the
Sustainable Water Programme of Action, the Minister for the
Environment set out options on:
• How to move water to its highest-value use and how to
determine what highest-value is.
• How to deal with catchments where more water than should
be allocated has been allocated.
• Alternatives to the current first-in-first-served common
allocation method, where water is allocated to people in the
order in which they apply for it.
• Alternatives explored would include models such as the
Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Regional Plan, which
took a considered approach to allocation, based on allocations
to activities (such as agriculture, tourism, and energy) rather
than based simply on when an application was made.
• The potential to separate take for use.
• How to ensure the appropriate participation of certain
stakeholders in decisions.
• The possible role of central boards/commissions (which
could range from advisory to actual decision-making bodies).
Minister for Environment, Nick Smith states
that ‘streamlining and simplifying the Resource
Management Act is an important part of the
new
Government's
programme….
The
Government wants to provide for more
efficient decision making on infrastructure,
reduce the costs and delays of consenting,
speed up planning making processes, and
restrict trade competition and vexatious and
frivolous objections.’
An RMA Technical Advisory Group was formed as part of the
National - ACT confidence and supply agreement.
National-led
Government
2008-current
2008
Minister for Environment, appointed a
RMA Technical Advisory Group to support the
Government's programme of reform of the
Resource Management Act. It was chaired by
barrister Alan Dormer and included
environmental consultant Guy Salmon, Rodney
Mayor Penny Webster, barrister Paul Majuery,
Tasman District Council Environment and
Planning Manager Dennis Bush-King, barrister
Michael Holm, planning consultant Michael
Forster, and businessman and former Deputy
Prime Minister Rt Hon Wyatt Creech.
October 2009
Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith
and Minister for Local Government, Rodney
36
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
Environment Canterbury performed poorly in the 2007/08
Resource Management Act survey, processing only 29% of
Hide announced an investigation into
Environment Canterbury :
‘The Government is not satisfied with
Environment Canterbury's performance in
efficiently processing resource consents,
developing a proper framework for managing
Canterbury's natural resources, nor with its
management of relationships with Canterbury's
territorial local authorities. We believe an
external review is necessary to fix these issues.
The first component of the review is under
Section 24A of the Resource Management Act,
looking into Environment Canterbury's
resource management functions. It is the first
time these provisions have been used. The
second is a non-statutory assessment of
Environment Canterbury's governance and
policy functions under the Local Government
Act."
Mr Hide said he had received strong
submissions from Canterbury's Mayors about
the performance of Environment Canterbury.
‘Recent
issues
around
Environment
Canterbury's governance and divisions among
Councillors do not give the Government
confidence the Council can resolve the
problems.’
37
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
consents on time - the worst of all 84 councils - was subjected
to review. Terms of reference were:
1. Preamble
1.1. Following the results of the 2007/2008 RMA Survey of
Local Authorities, the Minister for the Environment has
decided to undertake an investigation of resource consent
processing practices in Environment Canterbury (ECan) and a
broader review of ECan's performance under the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA). The Minister of Local
Government has also expressed an intention to review ECan's
wider performance under the Local Government Act 2002
(LGA02) in response to concerns raised by Canterbury Mayors.
The Ministers have agreed to conduct a joint review of ECan's
performance under both the RMA and LGA02.
2. Nature of Review
2.1. This review has two components. The first component is
a statutory investigation under section 24A of the RMA that
seeks to identify what has led to ECan's poor performance
record over the last survey period and performance
subsequently in resource consent processing. It also aims to
identify any broader planning, policy and governance matters
that may have contributed to the poor performance record of
Environment Canterbury during the period of the 2007/2008
survey period in meeting statutory requirements under the
RMA.
2.2. The second component is a non-statutory assessment of
whether there are wider issues with ECan's governance,
policies or implementation that are contributing to perceived
poor performance under the LGA02 or other statutes.
3. Scope of the Review
Investigation of Environment Canterbury's performance
under the RMA and identify possible solutions
3.1. The investigation will cover the following factors:

Guidance for applicants and use of Section 88

Use of Section 92

Analysis of consent processing systems and practices

Staffing and use of resources

Administrative systems and tools

Internal audits and monitoring

Relationships between applicants and submitters and
ECan

Relationship of timeframes to quality of decisions

Other contextual matters, including:

The management of sustainability limits and cumulative
effects

Adequacy of current planning framework for delivering
the vision and objectives of the Canterbury Water
Management Strategy in an effective and efficient
manner

Assessment of Environment Canterbury's wider
performance under the LGA02 or other legislation and
identify possible solutions.
3.2. The non-statutory assessment will cover the following
factors:
The approach of ECan to meeting its legal obligations
Adequacy of ECan's governance
Adequacy of ECan's management and decision making
processes
Financial management of ECan
The relationships between ECan and the territorial authorities
in its region, and extent to which ECan and TAs have met their
legal obligations for collaborating and co-operating
4. Methodology for Review
Investigation of Environment Canterbury's performance
under the RMA
4.1. The investigation will be undertaken by two external
investigators. The skill set required is primarily skills and
experience in resource consent processing and RMA matters
and experience in working with local government. Experience
in evaluation, performance assessment and organisational
improvement is also vital.
Assessment of Environment Canterbury's wider performance
under the LGA02 or other legislation
4.2. The assessment will be carried out by one external
consultant. This person will have qualifications, skills and
experience in working with local government.
On site work
4.3. The team of consultants will spend up to three weeks with
Environment Canterbury undertaking discussion with council
staff and assessing databases, file information and council
administrative systems.
4.4. Discussions with council staff will be based on a set of
interview questions focussed on council practices and
procedures. These questions, along with requests for the
documents and files required for the performance review, will
be pre-circulated to ECan prior to investigators arriving on site.
Further additional information may be requested onsite.
4.5. The following council staff will need to be available on
request during the performance review period:
Chief Executive, Chair, Councillors, Investigation and
Monitoring Director, Regulation Director, Resource Planning
and Consents Director, Finance and Corporate Services
Director, Regional Programmes Director, Managers and
planning, consenting and compliance staff under the above
Directors, Customer Services staff (if applicable).
5. Reporting
5.1. The findings (including any recommendations) from the
performance review will form the basis of a draft report to be
discussed with ECan before being finalised and presented to
the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local
Government. A copy of each final report will be provided to
ECan.
5.2. The RMA investigation may result in recommendations
being made to ECan on ways to improve its performance
under section 24A(b) of the RMA.
5.3. The non-statutory assessment may result in
recommendations being made to Environment Canterbury on
ways to improve its governance, policy or implementation
processes under the LGA02 or any other enactment.
5.4. Either set of recommendations may include ongoing
monitoring.
5.5. In response to the review's report, the Minister for the
Environment and the Minister of Local Government may
consider whether there is a case for further intervention
under the RMA or the LGA02, if necessary.
6. Timeframe for the review
6.1. The review is planned to take place over a three week
period in November 2009, with a report being drafted before
the end of the year.
38
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
6.2. Any final recommendations on ways to improve council
performance will be reported to ECan following officials
briefing the Ministers on the final report. This is expected to
be in early 2010.
2009
Minister for the Environment (Dr Nick Smith)
led changes to the Resource Management Act
to ‘improve the Act by removing costs,
uncertainties and delays that have frustrated
New Zealand homeowners, small businesses
and farmers for years’
2009
Minister for the Environment and Minister for
Primary Industries agree to the establishment
of the Land and Water Forum.
2009
Minister for the Environment (Dr Nick Smith)
released the 2008/09 Update on Freshwater
Recreational Water Quality and the baseline
report on Water Quality in Selected Dairy
Farming Catchments and government’s
intention to improve water quality monitoring:
‘we manage what we measure, and there has
been insufficient consistent data collection on
fresh water quality despite it being one of New
Zealand’s most valuable and important
resources. This deficiency was exposed in the
2007 New Zealand State of the Environment
Report … Government is determined to have
the work done to enable more accurate
reporting for the next State of the Environment
report. The data from the last two summaries
show that 58% of monitored fresh water
swimming spots met the guidelines over 95% of
the time where as 8% of sites breached the
guidelines more than 25% of the time. This level
of non-compliance is not acceptable and
highlights the need for a concerted effect to
improve recreational water quality. There is a
significant water quality issue emerging in areas
of intensive farming, particularly dairying.’
The baseline report on water quality in farming catchments
acts as a tool in monitoring the effectiveness of programmes
like the Clean Streams Accord to tackle water quality impacts.
The report identifies degraded water quality in these areas
and reinforces the need for further Government initiatives.
2009
New Start for Fresh Water: The previous Labour
government had determined to issue a national
policy statement on fresh water management.
The National Government Minister for the
Environment, Nick Smith, having sought and
considered comments from the relevant iwi
The Minister appointed a board of inquiry to:
• inquire into the proposed NPS;
• consider all submissions made and all evidence given on the
proposed NPS; and
• report to the Minister on the contents and subject matter of
the proposed NPS, including making recommendations about
39
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 amended
According to the Minster, key changes included:
‘Removing frivolous, vexatious and anti-competitive
objections that can add tens of thousands of dollars to consent
applicants;
Streamlining processes for projects of national significance
Creating an Environmental Protection Authority
Improved resource consent processes
Streamlined decision making
Strengthening compliance by increasing penalties and proving
for a wider range of enforcement
Improvements to national instruments’
Terms of reference for the Forum included:

To conduct a stakeholder –led collaborative
governance process to recommend reform of New
Zealand’s fresh water management

Using a consensus process, identify shared
outcomes and goals for fresh water

In relation to the outcomes and goals, identify
option to achieve them

Produce a written report which recommends
shared outcomes, goals and long-term strategies
for fresh water in New Zealand
June 2010
authorities and the persons and organisations
that he considered appropriate, prepared a
national
policy
statement
(NPS)
on
management of fresh water and chose to use
the process set out in sections 47 to 52 of the
Resource Management Act 1991.
amendments to the content of the proposed NPS so that it will
more fully serve its purpose and the purpose of the RMA.
Minister for the Environment Nick Smith
announced the establishment of a new
standalone Environmental Protection Authority
to perform environmental regulatory functions:
‘New Zealand needs a strong, independent
regulatory authority to ensure the protection of
our environment at a national level … bringing
under one roof a wide range of environmental
regulatory functions and providing stronger
national direction to the environment roles of
regional and district councils.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is Crown
Agent, with the Board accountable to the Minister for the
Environment.
The EPA receives and processes applications for proposals of
national significance under the Resource Management Act
1991, regulates the introduction and use of hazardous
substances and new organisms under the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms Act administers the Emissions
Trading Scheme and New Zealand Emission Registry under the
Climate Change Response Act and manages the
environmental impact of activities in the EEZ, including
prospecting for petroleum and minerals, seismic surveying
and scientific research.
The Minister may not direct the EPA
2010
The Review Group headed by the Rt Hon Wyatt
Creech, set up to review the performance of
Environment Canterbury was struck by the ‘gap’
between ‘what needs to be done’ to
appropriately manage water and ‘ECan’s
capability to do so’.
Their reasoning included:
• Around 70% of New Zealand’s fresh water
resource is in the Canterbury Region, much of
which is under demand from competing
interests. Unresolved water quality issues
persist in the Region in the minds of many
stakeholders.
The Canterbury Region contributes a significant
percentage of the nation’s renewable hydro
electricity generation capacity, and is important
in terms of agricultural and horticultural
production. All of these activities depend
critically on water.
• There are significant issues in relation to the
Crown’s Treaty obligations, with Ngāi Tahu
expressing a very strong interest in the
management of water as a Treaty partner.
• Resolving water resource issues is complex
and involves controversial and difficult
judgments to achieve the appropriate balance
between the environmental, economic, social
and cultural considerations that must be taken
into account. Experience to date indicates that
Environment Canterbury has not managed
these competing demands and interests
effectively. All too frequently, the outcome has
been undue delays rather than progress and
frustration levels on all sides are high.
16
The ECan Review Group 16 has concluded that ECan’s
performance on water policy and management issues
(allocation and quality) fell well short of what is essential and
required comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of
central government to protect and enhance both regional and
national well-being. “Failure to intervene will lead to
continued lack of progress in water management in
Canterbury … a profound change in approach is required to
existing institutional frameworks to address this matter
properly.
The Review Group acknowledged that Environment
Canterbury had made ‘significant efforts to improve the
situation both at a Council and officer level’ which while this
commendable, would ‘not of itself be sufficient to
satisfactorily resolve water management issues in the Region’.
‘The most recent initiative to progress the resolution of water
management issues in the Region is the Canterbury Water
Management Strategy (CWMS). This Strategy has been
vigorously promoted by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, ECan
and territorial authorities. ECan has constructively aligned
itself to this initiative and played a leading role in the
development of the Strategy and its intended institutional
framework. ECan took this approach after forming the view
that a collaboratively developed Canterbury Water
Management Strategy is the only realistic pathway with any
reasonable chance of success for developing a solution to
these complex and controversial issues.’ The Review Group
also noted ECan’s advice that the Canterbury Water
Management Strategy needed legislative change to make it
workable.
Creech, W., MartinJenkins, Hill, G. C., & Morrison Low. (2010). Investigation of the performance of Environment Canterbury under the
Resource Management Act & Local Government Act. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/investigation-performance-environment-canterbury/investigation-performance-environmentcanterbury.pdf.
40
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
• Despite the passage of more than 18 years
since the enactment of the Resource
Management Act, Canterbury does not have an
operative region-wide planning framework. The
absence of an over-arching planning and policy
framework for the Region has resulted in a
piecemeal, fragmented and inefficient
approach to the management of fresh water.
• It is a matter of record that, in the absence of
a planning framework, the Crown was forced to
intervene and establish the Waitaki Water
Allocation Board to manage the allocation of
water rights in the Waitaki Catchment following
competing claims to water from rural interests
and electricity generators.
• Most stakeholders spoken with expressed
considerable frustration with the long delays in
the resource consent approval process and
associated very high processing costs.
• Territorial authorities (TA’s) within the
Canterbury Region unquestionably believe that
Environment Canterbury has failed to
effectively and efficiently manage fresh water.
TA's view this as institutional failure.
March 2010
Minister for the Environment (Nick Smith)
introduced legislation to appoint Temporary
Commissioners to replace the elected
Environment Canterbury regional councillors.
The Commissioners appointed by the Minister would take on
the responsibilities of the elected Canterbury regional
councillors.
April 2010
Minister for the Environment (Nick Smith) and
Minister for Local Government (Rodney Hide)
appointed
Commissioners
to
oversee
Environment Canterbury (ECan) and ‘fix
Canterbury's significant water issues. The
Government's objective is to see an urgent
improvement in fresh water management
around water quality, water allocation and
opportunities for water storage.’
The ECan Commissioners are: Dame Margaret
Bazley (Chair), Hon. David Caygill (Deputy
Chair), David Bedford, Donald Couch, Tom
Lambie, Professor Peter Skelton, Rex Williams.
‘…. experienced and capable commissioners
with first-class public service, governance,
judicial and business skills…. ensured a balance
of agricultural, environmental and electricity
expertise to match the challenges facing ECan…
endeavoured to maximise the number of
Commissioners from Canterbury and ensured
representation from both North and South
Canterbury communities’.
Government’s concern ‘has been the lack of a
resource management plan for water in
Canterbury and that is why completing a plan
has been made an urgent priority in the terms
of reference.’
The Commissioners are required to improve relations with
Canterbury's 10 territorial councils, to build on the work of the
Canterbury Water Management Strategy and to meet all the
statutory obligations of the Resource Management and Local
Government Acts to consult with the Canterbury community.
2010
Minister for the Environment (Nick Smith) said
he was reluctant to make a decision on the NPS
until the Land and Water Forum processes
The Board of Inquiry set up under the Labour Government
reported on the proposed National Policy Statement (NPS).
41
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
finished. He also asked the Forum to consider
the Board’s recommendations on the NPS.
2010-2012
Land and Water Forum was made up of a range
of industry groups, environmental and
recreational NGOs, iwi, scientists and other
organisations with a stake in fresh water and
land management.
The Forum produced three consensus reports
which were widely consulted on. In September
2010, the Forum recommended that:
The government should:
•promulgate a National Policy Statement for
fresh water quickly. The current draft as
recommended by the Board of Inquiry is a basis
to work from.
•consider changes in the following areas of the
current draft –
– the references to Tangata Whenua roles
and Māori values and interests
– drafting changes to policy C1 to include
reference to "mitigate" in achieving
prescribed standards
– policy E2 to clarify what contamination
means in relation to the objectives
– drafting changes to the transitional
measures to correct a perceived vires
problem.
• consider promptly a set of issues which need
further work. They include –
– specific measures dealing with use and
development
– recognising the benefits of significant
infrastructure
– making environmental values more
specific by adding an objective which
protects the values of fishing, swimming
and mahinga kai
– providing for allocation efficiency.
• deal with these issues through collaborative
processes that consider a suite of national
instruments (note: some Forum members think
these issues should be addressed in the current
NPS; others think they should be dealt with
separately).
A National Policy Statement on Freshwater was put in place
on 1 July 2011 requiring Regional Councils to set limits on both
water quality and quantity. New funds have been established
to support sustainable irrigation projects and the clean-up of
polluted rivers and lakes.
Minister for the Environment and Minister for
Primary Industries said: ‘progress on fresh
water reform stalled for a decade because of
highly polarised positions. The Land and Water
Forum has done a great job bringing together
farmers, environmentalists, industry and iwi to
develop an agreed way forward. We are
engaging the Forum to do further work on the
complex issue of setting water limits and
improving systems for allocation….There is
broad agreement on the need to improve fresh
water management as evidenced by the
consensus on the 53 recommendations in the
Forum’s Fresh Start for Freshwater report. This
next phase of work will help underpin the newly
In March 2012:
Nearly $8 million in funding made available for cleaning up
polluted water bodies: ‘New Zealand generally has clean rivers
and lakes, but poor management over many years in a number
of lowland catchments needs to be addressed. The Manawatu
is New Zealand’s most polluted river, and the Wairarapa lakes,
Waituna and Wainono Lagoons are among our most
contaminated from excessive nutrients. These are nationallysignificant water bodies where the resources to clean them up
are beyond the capacity of local councils. Government is
prepared to help where rules have been put in place to
prevent ongoing pollution and where there is the local
commitment and co-operation to restore the river, lake or
lagoon. The Government contribution of nearly $8 million
represents 21 percent of the total $38 million being invested
42
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
The Land and Water Forum was engaged by the Government
to progress the next stage of policy work on setting limits on
water quality, quantity and allocation. ‘…national level
collaboration under the Forum has also helped drive
community initiatives in Rotorua, Manawatu, the Mackenzie
and in Selwyn to improve water management.
The Government agreed to provide an additional $1.1 million
to advance the next stage of work. The Forum is to report to
Government by May 2012 on methods, tools and governance
arrangements for setting limits for water quality and quantity
and by November 2012 on methods and tools on allocation.
adopted National Policy Statement on
Freshwater and progress the important details
on the Forum’s earlier recommendations.’
‘The Fresh Start for Fresh Water fund is enabling
a nationwide increased investment in cleaning
up rivers and lakes ... The commitments from
this Government for our first four years on
these clean-ups total $101.3 million and
compares to $17.7 million in the preceding four
years. This is a more than fivefold increase and
indicates the importance the Government puts
on improving fresh water. The Government’s
approach of cross sector collaboration, greater
involvement of iwi, clearer rules and increased
funding is delivering real gains in improving
New Zealand’s fresh water management’
in cleaning up these four water bodies. These clean-ups are
part of the Government’s broader Fresh Start for Fresh Water
programme of work to improve New Zealand’s fresh water
management, involving the Land and Water Forum and the Iwi
Leaders Group. Other work includes a new National Policy
Statement under the Resource Management Act on fresh
water that requires councils to set limits on pollution and
water extraction and a fund to support sustainable irrigation
projects.’
2011
Controller and Auditor-General: Managing
fresh water quality: Challenges for regional
councils17
‘how fresh water should be managed is
characterised by many strongly held and
potentially conflicting opinions ... we have
reasons to be concerned about fresh water
quality in some parts of the country, particularly
in lowland areas that are mainly used for
farming ... the cumulative effects of “non-point
source” discharges are now the most difficult
challenge for regional councils in managing
fresh water quality. Non-point source
discharges
include
nutrients,
chemical
pollutants, sediment, and bacteria’
Recommendation that:
All regional councils and unitary authorities:
1. Review methods for reporting results of fresh water
monitoring to ensure that the methods:
- compare the fresh water quality monitoring results with
(ideally, specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound) plan objectives, limits,
and standards where possible and with guidelines where
necessary;
- say whether fresh water quality is getting better or worse;
outline probable reasons why fresh water quality is in the
condition that it is; and
- discuss what the council and the community are doing, or can
do, to remedy any problems;
2. Set up stronger links between fresh water quality
monitoring results and how they measure the effectiveness of
their policies for maintaining and enhancing fresh water
quality; and
3. Meet the requirements of sections 35(2)(b) and 35(2A) of
the Resource Management Act 1991 to monitor the
effectiveness and efficiency of the policies, rules, or methods
in their policy statements and plans, and to compile and make
the results of this monitoring available to the public at least
every five years.
And that the Ministry for the Environment:
4. Provide guidance on what is expected from regional
councils to meet the requirements of sections 35(2)(b) and
35(2A) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
2011
Auditor-General reviewed the proposed
governance arrangements for the provision of
fresh water to New Zealand’s largest city. The
Auditor-General noted that the governance
arrangements established between the newly
amalgamated Auckland City Council and
Watercare are likely to meet the AG’s
expectations.
Auckland City Council’s letter of expectations was intended
to guide Watercare’s strategic direction. It ranges broadly
from high-level expectations (such as the "one Council" and
"no surprises" policies, transparency, and fiscal prudence) that
define the relationship with the Council and the behaviour
required of a public entity to more operational matters and
detailed expectations for the Statement of Corporate Intent.
It sets out the parts of the draft Annual Plan with which
Watercare must act consistently – a list of key strategic
projects relevant to Watercare – and identifies strategic
priorities that support the Mayor’s vision for Auckland:
17
Controller and Auditor-General. (2011). Managing freshwater quality: Challenges for regional councils. Wellington: Office of the
Controller and Auditor-General.
43
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies

Focusing on demand management, conservation,
environmental quality, and sustainability initiatives,
including reducing pollution in harbours;

reviewing options for wastewater treatment in outlying
communities; and

"working with people" about unpaid accounts, rather
than taking punitive action.
Auckland City Council has set up the following institutional
arrangements:
•The Accountability and Performance Committee (a
committee comprising all councillors) reviews the
performance of Watercare and the CCOs quarterly.
•The CCO Strategy Review Sub-committee, chaired by the
Mayor, is a sub-committee of the Accountability and
Performance Committee and is responsible for reviewing and
commenting on CCOs’ draft SCIs and Statements of Intent
(SOIs).
•A panel for appointing directors to the Watercare board,
comprising the Chairperson of the Watercare board, two
councillors and the chief executive of the Council, makes
recommendations to the CCO Strategy Review Subcommittee.
•There are bi-monthly meetings between the Mayor and the
Chairperson and chief executive of Watercare (and each CCO).
The Auditor-General expects a framework for governance
and accountability that:
•Reflects the importance of Watercare to Auckland and to the
Council;
•enables councillors to pursue their political interest in the
Watercare business openly and transparently;
•offers opportunity for genuine engagement between the
Council and Watercare, at appropriate intervals and at the
appropriate level of seniority, on the Council’s strategy and
priorities and on Watercare’s business performance and risks;
•enables adequate consideration of Watercare’s draft SCI and
its draft asset management and funding plans;
•complies with the relevant legislation; and
•does not impose a "compliance burden.
9 May 2011
Minister for the Environment (Nick Smith)
promulgated a National Policy Statement for
Fresh Water Management ‘giving clear
direction to councils on the importance of
improving New Zealand’s fresh water
management. It requires councils to set limits
on fresh water quality and the amount of water
that can be abstracted from our rivers, lakes
and aquifers. New Zealand’s fresh water
resources are among the cleanest and most
abundant of anywhere in the world but
problems are developing in our quality and
quantity in some areas. We need to get better
rules in place so we don’t end up having to fund
major clean ups on rivers like the Waikato and
lakes like Rotorua and make more efficient use
of water for irrigation and electricity. The
development of this policy involved extensive
public submissions in 2009, the report of the
Board on Inquiry in 2010 and the final report of
the Land and Water Forum in April 2011. There
is a broad consensus from all water stake44
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
The National Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management
was Gazetted on 12 May and took effect on 1 July 2011.
It is designed to impact upon all decisions on policies, plans
and individual resource consents by councils and the
Environment Court by recognising the value of fresh water to
New Zealand and giving stronger national direction to
councils.
The NPS contains objectives and policies to provide direction
on water quality, water quantity, integrated management and
tāngata whenua interests. Its major thrust, the setting of limits
for both water quantity and quality.
Cabinet agreed in June 2009 that most water bodies will
provide for most 'public values' and some level of use, which
may impose constraints on economic development and land
use; relatively few water bodies being highly protected in a
natural state; and very few water bodies being degraded if it
is agreed that the economic benefits are sufficient to outweigh
the other costs.
The NPS includes objectives that set a bottom line for water
quality: that water quality should be maintained or improved
within a region, while providing for economic growth, social
holders of the urgent need for this NPS. The
final policy reflects the Bluegreen emphasis of
this Government balancing economic growth
with improved environmental management.
The Government acknowledges this policy
announcement is just a first step in the complex
process of improving fresh water management.
We want to build on the constructive cooperation that has been developed with the
Land and Water Forum on the additional
measures to support its implementation. We
are
also
committed
to
monitoring
improvements in fresh water management
from the NPS and reviewing its effectiveness
within five years as the complete package of
reforms is rolled out.
31 May 2012
and cultural well-being. The objective recognises that there
are a small number of outstanding water bodies that should
be protected. It recognises that degraded water bodies should
be enhanced, although the quantum of enhancement and the
timeframe involved will vary. This will be identified by regional
councils in a target setting process at a catchment scale. The
objective also recognises that a bottom line of at least
maintaining water quality everywhere is not possible. It allows
for some variability in terms of water quality as long as the
overall water quality is maintained in a region. Essentially it
allows for offsets within a region, including between
catchments.
Parliamentary
Commissioner
for
the
Environment Jan Wright released a report
titled: Hydroelectricity or wild rivers? Climate
change versus natural heritage.
Minister of Conservation (Kate Wilkinson) and
Minister for the Environment (Amy Adams)
said that they will consider the challenges this
report makes to law makers to think about
issues such as the trade-offs between
renewable energy and wild and scenic rivers but
‘sometimes it is two positive environmental
priorities – like conservation values and the
obvious benefits of renewable energy – that can
be in conflict’.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ministers-consider-pcereport
September 2012
Minister for Local Government (David Carter)
and Minister for the Environment (Amy Adams)
confirmed that Environment Canterbury
Commissioners would continue to govern
Environment Canterbury beyond the 2013 local
authority elections.
‘In the interests of Canterbury’s progress, and
to protect the gains the Commissioners have
made, the Government has decided the best
option is to continue with the current
governance arrangement … In the face of
enormous challenges, the Commissioners have
done a great job of managing Canterbury’s vital
fresh water and natural resources. We look
forward to further progress for Cantabrians and
the continued growth of the region’.
A Bill will be introduced amending the Environment
Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water
Management) Act 2010, to extend Commissioner governance
until the 2016 local authority elections, with a ministerial
review in 2014.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/environment-canterburycommissioners-stay
November 2012
Minister for the Environment Minister (Amy
Adams) welcomed the effective start of new
regulations that require for the first time
significant water takes to be metered, as part of
a wider programme to improve fresh water
management. “We cannot manage what we do
not measure. There is a major gap in our
knowledge and it affects our ability to make
good decisions and to effectively manage
water”.
45
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
All significant water takes (more than 20 litres per second)
must now be metered. Smaller water takes down to five litres
per second will gradually be covered by the regulations so that
by 2016, about 98 per cent of consented water will be
measured.
Consent holders will be able to use information on how much
water they are using to identify costly inefficiencies in their
systems, such as poorly-performing pumps, intakes and wells.
This information is expected to enable savings in terms of
water used, and energy costs, and may help avoid costly issues
The regulations will be monitored and enforced
by regional councils.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/water-measuring-allowmore-efficient-management
down the track by allowing problems to be identified and
addressed before any serious difficulties with system
performance occur.
December 2012
Fresh Start for Freshwater
Minister for the Environment Amy Adams:
‘LAWF’s significant work over the last four years
has provided a strong basis for improving New
Zealand’s fresh water management system. The
Government is now at the point of being able to
advance fresh water reforms that have wide
buy-in, consider the long-term impacts of the
way we manage our fresh water resource and
provide greater certainty for those that need
reliable access to water. These reforms are
about
the
Government
supporting
communities to make decisions, plan and set
fresh water objectives and limits, and then
meet the challenges over time of managing our
land and water use within those limits. They are
also about ensuring we recognise the rights and
interests of iwi in fresh water.’
A key element of the immediate proposals is the introduction
of a National Objectives Framework. Among other things, this
means the Government would require that, for the first time,
New Zealand waterways would need to meet a national
bottom line to ensure they are a healthy place for fish and
plant life, and that they are safe for recreational activities.
The framework would ensure that councils have access to the
best science, iwi values are understood and considered
appropriately and fresh water objectives and limits are set in
a consistent and well-targeted way.
December 2012
Resource Management Act review undertaken
by Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams:
Despite the fact that the Act has been tweaked
at the rate of about one amendment bill a year
since its creation, the Government continues to
hear concerns that resource management
processes are cumbersome, costly and timeconsuming, and that the system is uncertain,
difficult to predict and highly litigious. The
system is difficult for many to understand and
use, and in many cases, that lack of clarity is
actively
discouraging
investment
and
innovation. Frustration with RMA processes is
rife and time and time again I hear that they are
failing to meet New Zealanders’ expectations.
The costs and time of drawn out processes has
real consequences. It is money and
opportunities that New Zealand families and
businesses are missing out on.
Resource Reform Management Bill 2012, introduced in
December 2012, is proposing reforms that would improve the
resource management system by (inter alia):
• making the process that enables applications to bypass
council decision-making and be directly referred to the
Environment Court – known as ‘direct referral’ – more readily
available for major regional projects
• improving the evaluations of objectives, policies and rules in
achieving the overall sustainable management purpose of the
RMA, carried out under section 32 of the RMA.
• improving national-level environment reporting.
The Government has already delivered
significant improvements to the resource
management system. Our first stage of reform
involved 150 amendments to simplify and
streamline the RMA and further reforms are
currently before Parliament. However, to
address the core issues with the resource
management system, a more systemic review
and programme of reform is needed.
Last week, I released a discussion document
that contains a comprehensive package of
resource
management
reforms.
Fundamentally, the reforms are about
providing greater confidence for businesses to
grow and create jobs, greater certainty for
communities to plan for their area’s needs, and
46
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
strong environmental outcomes
communities grow and change.
as
our
The reforms within the package are divided into
six core objectives:
•Greater national consistency and guidance
•Fewer, better resource management plans
•An effective and efficient consenting system
•Better natural hazard management
•Effective and meaningful Māori participation;
and
•Working with councils to improve their RMA
service performance
Taken as a package, these reforms are intended
to deliver a clearer, better, faster and lower cost
resource management system for New
Zealanders
that
meets
our
needs
environmentally, socially and economically,
now and into the future.
9 December 2012
March 2013
Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams
‘It is time to get serious about how we use
water in this country. It is a replenishable
resource but a finite resource at a given time
and place. We cannot manage what we do not
measure. There is a major gap in our knowledge
and it affects our ability to make good decisions
and to effectively manage water. Studies
suggest that water supports economic activity
worth up to $28 billion per year in New Zealand,
and only a small improvement in efficiency
makes an investment in improved information
worthwhile. It has been estimated that a five
per cent gain in efficiency would achieve a $100
million benefit for the country.’
New regulations require for the first time that significant
water takes be metered, as part of a wider programme to
improve fresh water management. All significant water takes
(more than 20 litres per second) need to be metered. Smaller
water takes down to five litres per second will gradually be
covered by the regulations so that by 2016, about 98 per cent
of consented water will be measured.
Consent holders will be able to use information on how much
water they are using to identify costly inefficiencies in their
systems, such as poorly-performing pumps, intakes and wells.
Minister for the Environment (Amy Adams) and
Minister for Primary Industries (Nathan Guy)
today released the document Freshwater
reform 2013 and beyond 18 which outlines the
Government’s proposed plan of action for
improving water quality and the way fresh
water is managed.
Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond outlines a clear path of
reform ahead that will be addressed through a comprehensive
and measured approach, starting in 2013. Immediate steps
provide a suite of changes to strengthen and enhance the
foundations of the fresh water management system.
The proposals are portrayed by Ministers as consistent with
and based on the Land and Water Forum’s (LAWF)
recommended approach and gives effect to their core
recommendations.
‘The Government is now at the point of being
able to advance fresh water reforms that have
wide buy-in, consider the long-term impacts of
the way we manage our fresh water resource
and provide greater certainty for those that
need reliable access to water. These reforms
are about the Government supporting
communities to make decisions, plan and set
fresh water objectives and limits, and then
meet the challenges over time of managing our
land and water use within those limits. They are
also about ensuring we recognise the rights and
interests of iwi in fresh water. The key tenet of
the Government’s proposals is that improving
18
The regulations are to be monitored and enforced by regional
councils.
A key element of the immediate proposals is the introduction
of a National Objectives Framework. Among other things, this
means the Government would require that, for the first time,
New Zealand waterways would need to meet a national
bottom line to ensure they are a healthy place for fish and
plant life, and that they are safe for recreational activities. The
framework would ensure that councils have access to the best
science, iwi values are understood and considered
appropriately and fresh water objectives and limits are set in
a consistent and well-targeted way.
Ministry for the Environment. (2013). Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
47
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
our water management system will require
solutions that start now and build over the longterm. There is no quick fix. Issues with our
waterways have been building over a number of
generations, and it is going to take a similarly
long time to fully realise solutions for these
issues.’
Minister for Primary Industries said ‘managing
water more efficiently through irrigation has
the potential to increase our agricultural
exports by $4 billion per year by 2026. To
deliver this we need to allocate existing water
more efficiently, and develop schemes that will
store and distribute water for the benefit of
both the economy and the environment.’
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-releasesfreshwater-proposals
Parliamentary
Commissioner
for
the
Environment (Dr Jan Wright) said that
proposed changes to fresh water management
are much needed, but only if they are
implemented properly. ‘One thing I disagree
with is the plan to allow Water Conservation
Orders to be bound by regional plans. Water
Conservation Orders exist to create a network
of nationally protected rivers – regional councils
should not be put in the position of deciding
whether or not particular rivers are nationally
outstanding.’
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ministers-consider-pcereport
May 2013
Conservation Minister (Dr Nick Smith) and
Environment Minister (Amy Adams) welcomed
a report proposing a way to manage the
contentious land intensification, water,
landscape, and biodiversity issues in the
Mackenzie Basin: ‘The focus has been on
investigating ways the biodiversity and special
character of the land can be enhanced, while
ensuring tourism and farming continue to
develop.’
According to Ministers of Conservation and Environment, the
Mackenzie Basin collaborative process was initiated in
preference over protracted court proceedings for
development proposals in the district.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/shared-vision-mackenziebasin-welcomed
26 June 2003
A Bill that will help deliver a system that
supports better planning decisions and creates
a streamlined process for the first Auckland
Unitary Plan has passed its second reading in
Parliament tonight.
Minister for the Environment (Amy Adams)
says the Resource Management Reform Bill
2012 is part of a resource management reform
package that will see further reforms
introduced later this year. Her aim is to avoid
the costs, uncertainties and delays of the
current resource management system are
affecting New Zealand jobs, infrastructure and
productivity, and place an unfair burden on
communities.
‘There is too much uncertainty in the outcome
of the process, and the impact of this is real.
48
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
Resource Management Act amended TBC to allow for:
•A six-month time limit on the council processing of mediumsized consents
•A streamlined process for Auckland’s first Unitary Plan
•A stronger requirement for councils to base their planning
decisions on robust cost-benefit analysis
•Consent applications for major regional projects can be
directly referred to the Environment Court more easily
Potential new jobs are not being created and
communities are missing out on economic
benefits. Resource management reform is a key
part of the Government’s Business Growth
Agenda. We need a resource management
system that provides good environmental
outcomes, while still supporting economic
growth, and is capable of adapting to changing
values, pressures and technologies.’
Minister for the Environment used Statistics
New Zealand’s Business Operations Survey to
justify her concern that RMA processes are
having a significant effect on business
performance.
According to the survey, businesses have
blamed the RMA process for the cancellation of
projects potentially worth more than $800
million over the last two financial years.
The uncertainty of the process had led to the
cancellation of about two thirds of these
projects.
The survey also shows:
•Only 3 per cent of businesses said current RMA
processes enhanced their business
•430 businesses cancelled projects each worth
more than $100,000 due to RMA processes
•Some businesses have spent up to 25 per cent
of their total expenditure on applying for
resource consents
•More than half of resource consent
applications are cancelled in the pre-application
stage, mainly due to uncertainty and time
delays
•The vast majority of businesses feeling
constrained by the RMA are small and medium
enterprises
Ms Adams says the survey confirms what she
had heard from businesses and communities
during a series of RMA consultation meetings
throughout the country.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/survey-backs-resourcemanagement-act-reforms
9 July
The Prime Minister (John Key) and Minister for
Primary Industries (Nathan Guy) launched the
diary industry’s new Strategy for Sustainable
Dairying 2013-2020: Making Dairying work for
everyone.
Dairy NZ (Chairman John Luxton) said that
‘Making Dairy Farming Work for Everyone’ is
aimed at enabling farmers to build
economically sustainable businesses alongside
a strong focus on environmental actions. ‘The
size and scale of our industry demands that we
have a new plan for farming competitively and
responsibly. And that is what this new strategy
is all about.’
49
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
Sustainable Dairying 2013-2020: Making Dairying work for
everyone was developed by industry body DairyNZ, in
partnership with the Dairy Companies Association of New
Zealand (DCANZ), the Federated Farmers of New Zealand dairy
section and the Dairy Women’s Network. It sets out 10
objectives including proactive environmental stewardship and
wise use of natural resources, providing a world-class on-farm
work environment and ensuring talented people are attracted
to the industry.
Milk production in New Zealand has grown 47 percent in the
last ten years and reached 1.7 billion kilograms of milksolids in
2012. Twenty-one percent of New Zealand’s grasslands are
now used for dairy farming. With over $13 billion in dairy
exports in 2012 and a $5 billion contribution to national Gross
Domestic Product, the dairy industry employs 45,000 people.
The Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord is a new, broader and
more comprehensive commitment than the previous Clean
Streams Accord that ended in 2012. It includes commitments
to targeted riparian planting plans, effluent management,
comprehensive standards for new dairy farms and measures
to improve the efficiency of water and nutrient use on farms.
It contains a new set of national good management practice
benchmarks aimed at lifting environmental performance on
dairy farms has been agreed between DairyNZ and dairy
companies, with the support and input from a wide range of
industry stakeholders including Federated Farmers.
10 July
Minister for the Environment (Amy Adams) and
Minister for Primary Industries (Nathan Guy)
finalise first stage of an action plan to improve
water quality and the way fresh water is
managed. Ministers hope that ‘getting
agreement upfront in the planning process will
mean fewer debates and less litigation further
down the track, which will ultimately save time
and money, and lead to better overall
outcomes…. improving our water management
system will require solutions that start now and
build over the long-term. There is no quick fix.’
Ministers decided not to progress plans to
review how Water Conservation Orders work
with regional planning.
The Government has also decided to improve
the way in which iwi/Māori engage in fresh
water planning, no matter whether councils
decide to choose the collaborative option or the
existing process. Government will work closely
with regional councils to provide guidance and
other support to help them implement the
changes.
7 November 2013
Minister for the Environment (Amy Adams) and
Minister for Primary Industries (Nathan Guy)
released national water standards as part of
their ongoing reform of fresh water policy.
‘Ensuring an on-going and reliable supply of
healthy water is one of the most important
environmental and economic issues facing New
Zealand today. It is critical that we protect and
improve the water quality that we all care so
much about.’
50
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
The Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond policy confirmed by
Cabinet, following more than 50 meetings throughout the
country with councils, iwi, environment groups, businesses
and the public and hundreds of submissions creates ‘a new
fresh water collaborative planning option which will give
communities and iwi a greater say in planning what they want
for their local waterways and how they should be managed’.
This means that rather than a council drafting a plan and then
asking for comment, a representative group of stakeholders
drawn from the community will be able to work together on a
plan. Councils will not be completed to choose a collaborative
approach, however feedback on the fresh water proposals.
Other parts of the immediate steps for the fresh water
reforms include the creation of a National Objectives
Framework (NOF) and better water accounting. Legislative
amendments are planned to facilitate the introduction of the
NOF. Detailed scientific work on populating the NOF is
continuing and a further period of consultation will be carried
out before final decisions on the design and detail of the NOF
are made.
Still to come over the next few years:
•Rules and tools to support the improved planning system and
the National Objectives Framework
•A review of the Water Research Strategy across the whole of
Government
•National direction and guidance on accounting for sources of
contaminants and the use of models for nutrient budgeting
•National guidance on dealing with over-allocation, transition
issues, and compliance and enforcement; and
•More work on allocation of water on expiry of permits, the
transfer and trade of water, and incentives for efficient water
use
A discussion document seeks feedback on the Government’s
proposals for:
•a national framework to support communities setting fresh
water objectives
•explicit recognition of tangata whenua values for fresh water
•ecosystem and human health as compulsory values in
regional plans
•bottom lines for ecosystem and human health that apply
everywhere, and
restricted grounds for exceptions to bottom lines; and
•requiring councils to account for all water takes and
contaminant discharges
More than 60 fresh water scientists from public, private and
academic sectors across New Zealand have come up with
numeric values proposed for national bottom lines for fresh
water.
* Except where specifically referenced otherwise, all information contained in this table is extracted from Beehive press releases and
speeches found at www.beehive.govt.nz
References
Allen, P. M., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (Eds.). (2011). Sage handbook of complexity and management.
Los Angeles: Sage.
Brower, A. (2010). Legislation Note: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and
Improved Water Management) Act 2010. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 14, 309321.
Canterbury Mayoral Forum. (2010). Canterbury Water Management Strategy. Christchurch:
Canterbury Water
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An integrative framework for collaborative governance.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29. doi:
10.1093/jopart/mur011
Eppel, E. (2012). What does it take to make surprises less surprising? The contribution of complexity
theory to anticipation in public management. Public Management Review, 14(7), 881-902.
Eppel, E. (2013). Collaborative governance case studies: The Land and Water Forum. Wellington:
Institute
for
Governance
and
Policy
Studies
http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/350.
Foerster, A. (2011). Developing purposeful and adaptive institutions for effective environmental water
governance. Water Resources Management, 25, 4005-4018. doi: 10.1007/s11269-011-9879-x
Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a theory of learning collaboratives: Evidence from the
Everglades restoration program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4),
619-644. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muq089
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Ministry for the Environment. (2013). Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond. Wellington: Ministry for
the Environment.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2012). Water quality in New Zealand:
Understanding the science. Wellington: Author www.pce.parliament.nz.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2013). Water quality in New Zealand: Land use
and nutrient pollution. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-Water-quality-land-use-website.pdf.
Perry, C. (2013). ABCDE+ F: A framework for thinking about water resources management. Water
International, 38(1), 95-107. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2013.754618
Rau, H., & Edmondson, R. (2013). Time and sustainability. In F. Fahy & H. Rau (Eds.), Methods of
sustainability research in the social sciences (pp. 173-190): Sage.
Room, G. (2011). Complexity, institutions and public policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Russell, S., & Frame, B. (2011). From old problems to new solutions. In S. Russell, B. Frame & J. Lennox
(Eds.), Old problems new solutions: Integrative research supporting natural resource
governance (pp. 1-11). Lincoln, NZ: Manaaki Whenua Press.
51
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
Russell, S., & Ward, M. (2011). Participating in decision-making processes. In S. Russell, B. Frame & J.
Lennox (Eds.), Old problems new solutions: Integrative research supporting natural resource
governance (pp. 188-198). Lincoln, NZ: Manaaki Whenua Press.
Salmon, G. (2012). Canterbury water management strategy: A case study in collaborative governance
Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, February 2012. Wellington: Ministry for
the Environment.
Teisman, G., van Buuren, A., & Gerrits, L. (Eds.). (2009). Managing complex governance systems:
Dynamics, self-organization, and coevolution in public investments. New York: Routledge.
Verweij, M., & Thompson, M. (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: Governance, politics and
plural perceptions. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
Verweij, M., Thompson, M., & Engel, C. (2006). Clumsy conclusions: How to do policy and research in
a complex world. In M. Verweij & M. Thompson (Eds.), Clumsy solutions for a complex world:
Governance, politics and plural perceptions (pp. 241-249). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense making in organisations. London: Sage.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of
uncertainty (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wiek, A., & Larson, K. I. (2012). Water, people and sustainability - A systems framework for analysing
and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resources Management, 26, 3153-3171. doi:
10.1007/s11269-012-0065-6
52
Author: Elizabeth Eppel, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies